To The Moon rant [BIG OLE SPOILERS]

[Keep]

Honestly I don't think the game was really 'about' the whole autism angle although it was obviously the defining aspect of their relationship (as much as the game went out of its way to hide that). What I got out of it was that the 'to the moon' bit was a desire to return to that perfect time (not place) at the carnival with his mother and brother somewhere in the background and a nice girl he had met.

If the game realised that itself, it would've been great.

As it is I see too many frayed ends and shards of plot to just roll with that. Not least is that the 'to the moon' bit was actually about just going to the moon, because he became an astronaut and literally went to the moon.

If the story aimed for your ending there, and cut out the bits that muddied that expression and emphasised new elements to support it, I think you'd have a great story. As was, it didn't work for me.

Outside of all that for a moment, I think the fact that we are even having this discussion reflects quite strongly and favourably on the game. Even if it didn't quite work for you when was the last time you ever discussed a game's storyline at such length? Even if the flaws weren't that bad for me it's good to read well argued discourse on this so thanks for that!

True dat. I find I talk the most about things I wished were good, not things I thought were good (or even, were bad).

Thanks for the discussion man.

[Sagan]

Some specific points first:

I thought that Johnny was aware that he used to have a brother. It's just that he didn't tell others. (which is why he invents the explanation for why his mother calls him by his brother's name at the wedding) I think he would remember that he used to have a brother and his memories are probably just really, really hazy about the whole thing.

Also I very much disagree with this part of the original post:

Similar logic-implosions happen with the reveal of River's condition. The implications are huge, and deeply troubling: that Johnny dated her, that he - there's no other word for it - abused her as he did, that she was so shut off from him that she never mentioned their true first meeting and yet they got married and lived together and never once sought counselling or help.

I don't think that you could use the word "abused" in their relationship at all. Also I don't think that they needed counselling or help. They made a good couple. Her being autistic doesn't change that.
The whole thing about the paper rabbits is River trying to make him remember their first meeting. Sure, maybe she could have just told him, but I don't think that it's a plot hole that "she never mentioned their true first meeting." It makes sense that she would have acted this way. She thought it was better to make him remember himself.

And my interpretation is that the rabbits did work and that he did remember their true first meeting just before he died. At the beginning of the game the kids express surprise about the blue/yellow paper rabbit because it hadn't been there one week ago. I believe that Johnny maybe looked at it one more time in that lighthouse his final week when the realization hit him. It's just that we don't learn this because he is unconscious and we can only talk to him in a memory when that hadn't happened yet.

As for the bigger points:
I probably agree that this isn't a very great story. But I would still call it at least a good story. And this is a game that I recommend that people play. Even though the story may not be as brilliant as some make it out to be, the way it's told is really well done and the music and the graphics are beautiful and the characters are well written and interesting and there are just many things to recommend about this game.

I also agree that the "telling the life story in reverse" doesn't quite work all the way to the end. The beginning is really good when you first see him at River's tombstone and he says that she didn't have to die. So you want to see why that is. Then you see that River chose that she'd rather the house be built than she survive, and there's that new mystery of "Anya." The mysteries work really well for a long time. The game doesn't quite keep that up the entire time. I mean I wouldn't want it to present new mysteries all the time, but then I'd like it to go at a faster pace or present me with something else that is equally interesting.
But: even with that I still felt that the game worked well enough through it all. It never went too far to where it became boring. That could have easily happened with the entire sections before the one where they got married, because we aren't learning much new after that. But the game still did well, just not as well as the earlier sections.

I also agree that I probably don't want a sequel to this game. I'm not convinced that the mechanism of going through a person's memories in reverse needs multiple visits. I'd rather that that team does something else for their next project.

Finally: I did enjoy the ending more than you guys. It did totally work for me and I was wondering how the alternate memory would play out and I was not instantly convinced that there would be a "everything is fine" ending. So yeah, it kept me enraptured in that entire sequence. And ultimately I can only say that I really enjoyed the game.

[Keep]

I thought that Johnny was aware that he used to have a brother. It's just that he didn't tell others. (which is why he invents the explanation for why his mother calls him by his brother's name at the wedding) I think he would remember that he used to have a brother and his memories are probably just really, really hazy about the whole thing.

I don't remember anything in the story to support that, but maybe I missed it? Can you point out conversations/moments/text to back you up there?

I don't think that you could use the word "abused" in their relationship at all. Also I don't think that they needed counselling or help. They made a good couple. Her being autistic doesn't change that.

The house was filled with paper rabbits. She refused to explain why. He wrote her a song, and she completely disregarded it.
I don't know about you, but the subtext of those encounters said "dysfunctional!" to me. Their problems went unspoken maybe. Brushed off possibly. But for me, the player looking in, that wasn't a healthy circumstance for either to be in. Their actual conversations only hammered that feeling home.

And I'll confess ignorance of autism; I don't know how much/in what way it affects your ability to maintain full social relationships. So forgive me if I overstep reasonableness.

What I do know about it is that its central characteristic is impaired social ability. And what the game showed me of it, as presented through River, was:
That her dialogue was always kooky, disconnected, odd.
And her friend remarked that she too was autistic, but not as severely as River, and she pitied and worried about her.
And that a medical doctor thought it was a really serious matter.
And that River's entire personality was based around this condition; I'm not sure she had any other tangible character traits.

So it must be pretty damn significant to any relationship she's in.

"Abused" is a big word, I know. But I think it applies to at least their initial relationship. Johnny wanted River as an accessory, not a friend/person. She didn't know this. That's a key point in the story of their relationship. Ok, maybe they worked it out positively later. But keeping in mind her social impairment - exactly the faculty that needs be preyed on in such a scenario...that doesn't strike you as even slightly abusive? She's autistic, he knows this, he acts like that?

And then he married her!? There is so much that needs to be justified, explained, resolved, for the story told chronologically-straight to make that seem reasonable.

It can't be washed away with "Well teenagers are stupid". It's an element of their relationship, and it's deep and it's dark.

So yeah, abused. Alter the plot's perspective just the slightest, I think that becomes undeniable.

this is a game that I recommend that people play. Even though the story may not be as brilliant as some make it out to be, the way it's told is really well done and the music and the graphics are beautiful and the characters are well written and interesting and there are just many things to recommend about this game.

I'm just quoting you here because I think it's important to highlight for anyone reading and wondering about this game. My rant is one opinion; this is another, just as good.

[Dolphan]

"Abused" is a big word, I know. But I think it applies to at least their initial relationship. Johnny wanted River as an accessory, not a friend/person.

I think you misread the game here. This isn't why Johnny wants River; it's an explanation that he puts on himself because his understanding of his own motives is messed up (one of the open questions for me is how far River understands this - is she trying to bring to light something she KNOWs is in him, or is she just hoping?). This is one of the strongest themes running through the whole story; how on Earth we're supposed to really relate to other people, given how often we fail to even come close to understanding ourselves (there seems to be fertile ground to build on this with Nick and Eva in any sequel). The central symbol of the story, Johnny's desire to go to the moon, embodies this.

I thought the whole traumatic memory/beta blockers thing was a bit too much, which was a shame; it could have been much more normal than that. Let the time gap be enough for him to lose the childhood memory of River. As it is, it veers too much towards this being a special contrived situation, with him and her both being psychological special cases, instead of being just different enough to throw into the light something that's quite universal.

[IDtenT]

So I cannot understand how people could've liked this game, except that our diet of story is so deprived that even something as clunky and overwrought as this can be considered nourishing. For Christ's sake though, we can do better! We can do a lot better.

Exactly. I've been saying or years that gaming is yet to hit its grove as the film industry has. If anyone is to be blamed, then it is the critics. Not that film critics can't also be dazzled by nonsense *cough*Avatar*cough*, but this is a discussion for another time.

I've also concluded that the game is no more than a manipulative ride and I've drawn comparisons to something like Seven Pounds. That's fine for what it is. It gets sold as a manipulative game, one where you can cry at the story. I also agree that the twin was completely unnecessary to tell the story and the worst point of manipulation in the game. I however thought the whole rabbit thing was rather brilliant.

I do disagree that there is nothing to take home afterwards. Yes, the feeling of unfair and helplessness and such is left with everyone and pretty much forced home. There is however a real philosophical question in whether manipulating memories are okay, if the subject agreed to it.

This brings up another point. I felt the game-play was perfect for trying to convey helplessness. Especially in the latter level where you had you chase Eva. Yes it leaves much to be desired, but how interactive can you make it without ruining the vehicle you need to tell the story effectively.

The gaming industry still has much room to mature in.

Edit:

(for me the film Seven Pounds is a prime example of this being done horribly badly, the first 20 monutes seemed for me to be an exercise purely in confusing the viewer to obfuscate the outcome of the film and preserve the intended emoptional impact of the film. I figured it out half an hour before the end and was then interminably bored while waiting for the pay off, making the whole thing just not worth it.

I thought that was pretty much the idea. The point where you go "Of fuck. OH FUCK! I know what's happening. Oh fuck! Shit. Bawwwwwww." The whole point of that movie to me is about realising the plot before the characters in it do. That way when he does finally off himself, you've already worked through the premise and can empathise with his death, rather than revile him for it. Thereby evoking greater emotion.

Edit: Edit: Keep: I'm going to disagree on plot holes here. Yes there are some magic involved with the beta blockers, but that's just general Hocus Pocus as seen in many films. They could have replaced the beta blockers with any possible magical future substance that could completely block memories, would you have preferred that?

I also don't see where there is any plot-holes in information not revealed. They only have snippets of memory to work with and the caretaker who barely knows him. It's completely possible that the memories they did get were actual memories. I seriously don't see the holes.

They also do inform future events, what else was the use of the hacky-sack, platypus or rabbit serve then? Or indeed the mother using his brother's name? I see nothing wrong with how the events chronologically flow. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

I don't think the dynamics of the relationship needed much discussion. The whole plot is driven towards that one time looking at the stars as a child. The rest are all there to act as plot pointers to drag it in that direction. They could have added more, but it would have detracted from the premise, imho.

[Sagan]

I don't remember anything in the story to support that, but maybe I missed it? Can you point out conversations/moments/text to back you up there?

So here is a video of the scene (the scene is at 24:30 in)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzZ9mZSM0jk#t=24m30s

The exact quotes are:
Dr Watts: "At least Johnny had the beta-blockers erase the memories. Not like he remembers it, much."
Dr Rosalene: "Fuzzily unlinked, not erased. Somewhere in there, the aftermath of those memories probably lingered."

I took this to mean the memory of his brother's death was erased, but not all memories of his brother. He probably still has some fuzzy memory of there once being a brother.

Also at 6:50 in the video they learn that his treatment with beta-blockers is actually in his medical records. I'd assume that Johnny's doctor probably told him why when he turned 18 or something.

But I can see how it would instead mean that he doesn't remember much from his childhood at all, which would include a complete blackout about his brother. I'm not so certain about my point any more. Could be that he didn't know about his brother.

[Reives Freebird]

Hiya guys, Kan from Freebird here.

I've just finished reading this entire thread so far. I have to say, I'm really impressed by how mature and constructive the points are. Many thanks for that, it was a fantastic read.

@Keep: While some of what you said definitely wasn't how I intended for it come across as, I won't waste our time by defensively explaining the "original intentions", since what really matters is how it was perceived after being materialized -- It was really helpful that you could articulate your experience with it so well. I'm not sure if I could immediately turn the next episode 180' around to make it suddenly satisfactory, but I'll definitely try to keep what you said in mind while writing future installments (whether you'd actually try them yourself or not, hah).

Though, just a minor note on the unexplored themes of going through one's life: There were indeed many, many aspects of growing old that were left untouched in this particular story. Truthfully, I just wanted for this particular story to be devoted to one single aspect to avoid losing focus (not to say that doing both is technically impossible). An in-game logical excuse of it could be that the mental world constructed from the patient on their death bed is created with the emphasis of what was mattering to them most at that very moment -- and in this case, at that moment, it was just the relationship between Johnny and River; so the memories fetched were based on that seed. Hopefully the other episodes will focus some of the other aspects with better effects.

Anyhow, sorry for the relatively brief post since I'm a little swarmed and behind schedules right now, but I mostly just wanted to drop by to thank everyone for the intriguing discussion, and to let you know that I'll try my best to absorb it; it was very insightful to read.

[Wulf]

Well... either the OP is right or John is right, and in this case I think it's John.

I suppose some just won't get To the Moon. A game which requires a lot of feeling, and a lot of emotional reading between the lines. If you're not good at the whole 'feeling' thing, then you'll never get To the Moon. But to me, hating on To the Moon is like hating on a Disney film. You've got people who'll tell you that Disney films are the most poorly written things ever, but to be honest? It sounds like scenester nonsense to my ears.

You don't do 'feeling,' and you didn't get it. That's fine. Me? I absolutely adored it. I did get it.

And it also sounds like you're angry about the lack of what you perceive to be necessary gameplay, and you're scraping the barrel versus the story without ever actually getting at the core of it: You just dislike the lack of what you think is necessary gameplay. Your points against the story are entirely subjective, to be honest, and thus just one subjective voice amongst many.

You didn't get To the Moon, that's fine. You didn't like it because of that, that's fine too. That does not make it a bad game.

---

Now let's go over the post.

It was twee. It was shallow. It wasn't knowingly cynical, but by God was it manipulative. The story had no purpose beyond tugging at your emotional heart strings.

How was it shallow? I'll give you that it was twee, but some people like twee. In fact, I'd say that twee is perfectly fine given the Disney reference earlier. When I hear people hating on twee, I hear people screaming about how colourful cartoon films are 'gay.' It's not a valid reason to say something is bad. It's only valid to say that you don't like it.

There was no reflection on love [...]

The whole thing was about love. This is my proof that you didn't get it and that you're scraping the barrel. From the outset you can tell it's about love because of Johnny's dedication. And it's always about his dedication, and dealing with a relationship in which one party isn't neurotypical. And dedication is the truest form of love you can show. It was also tremendously romantic in all senses of the word - if you can look at the scene where the promise to meet on the moon is made and say that it's not about love, then I'd call you oblivious or a liar.

[...] or old age [...]

Why was it supposed to be? It was about someone's life, and old age is only the rear end of that. It dealt with all that he cared to remember, and this was people traipsing around in his memories. This, once again, proves that you don't really get it. They could only work with what Johnny had to give them.

[...] or any of the topics it ventured into.

Such as?

There was no insight, no carrying around the thoughts of the game afterward with your perspective affected by it.

Yes, there was. The insight was in regards to his lost brother - his lost brother was the very reason for his precarious mental state, and all the confusion and loose ends that were found all throughout the story. From the point when ewe discovered that he had a brother, the game started tying up those loose ends nicely.

Then we learned about his obsession with the moon. And the insight was how long his love with River had lasted, how deep it was, and there was also a little wisdom there too about the almost gleeful use of drugs to solve everything in our modern age and how that can be a double-edged sword.

Apparently you didn't get any of this.

It was just a push for an auld cry.

And that's bad?

No significance, no depth.

None that you actually got, anyway. The revelations towards the end of the game provided plenty of both. When we learned so much about River. I mean, even just learning the nature of the multicoloured rabbit, for instance. Did you ever understand why that had such significance as a plot point?

Again, I'll just say that you didn't get it.

It felt childish, like a kid at a fire-camp thinking his story is scary because he keeps pointing out how impossible a mundane explanation must be.

You must be a real fun person to watch animated family films with.

No, it didn't feel childish. You're looking at the superficial side of things and not actually delving into the story itself. It seems 'childish,' I suppose, because ultimately it was a story about children and the magical things that can happen in childhood. The whole story was progressing backward toward childhood. I suppose you read that as childish.

Let me try and get into some details to explain myself: the plot depended a lot on its withholding certain information from you in order to unfold.

A number of them, actually.

It didn't do so in an organic way, [...]

It might have seemed that way, but that's the nature of the beast.

Just because it doesn't read like a novel doesn't mean that it's a bad story. It was ultimately the progression through a series of memories, and there are bound to be things about that that feel unnatural and take you out of your comfort zone, which is what I think this is about.

But it did flow properly in regards to its own setting. You just have to be more open-minded, whereas you're coming off old fashioned and just hating it for being a bit different - and thus taking you out of your comfort zone.

[...] by having new characters or scenarios come to reveal some further insight.

You mean like Isabelle and Nick? And then later on; His brother, his childhood friend, and his mother?

No, it was deliberately obtuse, unhelpful, avoidant.

Words words words. Everyone can have 50 dollar words but you're not making a lot of sense with them. How was this so? If you mean that all the details weren't immediately obvious to you, then no. A part of the storyline was a mystery and that was, again, the nature of the beast. This seems to be more about you being closed-minded in regards to the story it was trying to tell rather than the game itself.

Because to me, it sounds like you've just spent the last while poorly articulating that you think that a game isn't allowed to convey a mystery. And that the very attempt annoys you.

Characters talking archly about River's "problem" for example, [...]

You're trying to claim here that they obfuscated River's condition. Whereas it was mentioned fairly early on that River isn't neurotypical. From that, it isn't hard to figure out where it's going.

It didn't tell you from the opening first few seconds no. But should it have? That's what you seem to be claiming. Again, it sounds like you're angry that the game had a sense of mystery about it.

[...] or Eva announcing she now "gets" what's going on, but refusing to reveal what "it" is, [...]

Throughout the entire game I never once witnessed this. Could you give me an example?

[...] the script perpetually picked its path in a way that determinedly ensured your frustrated curiosity was prolonged...but it was all artificial and needless.

No, it was a mystery, one which offered you clues, and answered your questions along the way to a complete culmination which tied all the loose-ends together. It's just sounding like you're angry at it for being a mystery again, like a game or a story is never allowed to hold anything back from you.

And again, you're forgetting that you're dealing with the ephemeral nature of memories.

There was no in-universe reason for why things came to light as they did; only the dictatorial hand of the writer contriving to mask some bits, misrepresent others.

I can't think of any instances of this. Everything that happened in the story happened for a reason. Let's take the beta blockers for example - that's a perfectly valid thing to happen, and it's actually a pretty intelligent statement regarding the drug happy state of the world right now.

One example is Ritalin. If a child seems a little strange, stick 'em on Ritalin! It'll be fine.

This is a future world we're looking at here, and the assumption was was that the situation with using medicines irresponsibly was going to get worse. They had a problem with a traumatised, a child that they were afraid would go crazy unless they acted. So they pumped him up with drugs to block off a bunch of memories of his youth, leaving them clouded and vague but leaving his skills and knowledge in place.

It might not have been a reason that you liked, but it was an entirely valid one. And frankly, I liked it, I thought it was quite an intelligent reason. And it tied back to the very beginning of the game, since Johnny admitted to having strange whimsy and desires but not really knowing why.

It all flowed, it all had reason. You just refused to see it out of your arbitrary hate of the game borne of you not being able to stand that the game was leading you along, perhaps you felt that the game seemed a little bit too intelligent and that bothered you, perhaps you like being able to figure out everything from the first page and you felt that the whole thing was a sleight to your intelligence. But really, this tells me less about To the Moon and more about you, as a person.

You hate unnatural mysteries or mysteries that you can't figure out, and you call them all poorly written when you can't wrap your mind around them. I wish I could say that I hadn't seen this attitude before, though.

It was obvious what you needed to know; it was obvious what you needed to do in order to learn it. But you did not have the opportunity as a player to find this out on your terms.

Theeere we go. So called that in the last paragraph.

You're annoyed that the game was intelligent enough to keep you guessing, it made you angry. KEEP SMASH. That's what this is coming over as... it really is. I'm sorry, but that's what it's sounding like.

Should the game have had a button to reveal all of its secrets to you for pushing said button? I don't think so. See, you seem to be the sort that skips to the end of a mystery book for 'hints' just so you can guess the outcome of the story, and that To the Moon wouldn't let you do that, and kept you guessing, and mercilessly teased you even just made you angry.

But there are plenty of well written novels, films, and yes, even games out there that do just that.

You'd hate the hell out of the Myst series.

You were hamstrung by the game's desire to control the pacing.

Which is bad... why?

You seem to be a bit of a control freak, you need everything your way. You need to be able to skip to the last few pages of a story or it's a bad book. Why? Should the game give you that leisure? I don't think it should. I think it's a good game for not giving you that leisure.

Consider the meeting with the doctor - more oblique references to a "condition" were made, but there absolutely no need for the situation to be obscure from the player's point of view.

Memories. Ephemeral. Nature of the beast. And an angry man who doesn't like being teased.

We could tickle a memory from five minutes earlier!

No. You know that's not how it works. It's the host that decides where and when they can jump to, not them. This is explained at length many times. You're really grasping for straws now to hate this story, aren'cha?

Or pick up the case files on the desk!

Good lord...

MEMORIES. You'd only be able to pick up the files and see them if Johnny actually had read and understood them.

Or do any one of a number of actions in order to figure it out yourself, instead of listening to obscure phrasings and a crowing Eva figure it out.

You totally didn't get To the Moon, see. I mean... wow. You're just too closed-minded to, I think. I'm sorry... but you had to proclaim objectively that To the Moon was bad, so I'm reactively just giving my opinion. And really, I think that you just didn't get the whole 'memories' thing at all. Or a lot about the story in general.

After a while, the whole game started to collpase under the weight of such contrivances.

Or so you say.

I wasn't witnessing the regression of a man to a boy to a child, as each interaction that had changed him came undone. I was listening to a forced explanation of how things got to be this way, a particular type of blinkered logic that shut out all notions of alternate developments, realism or common sense be damned.

You're expecting full present-day realism from a fantasy tale where people can pop into the heads of other people and walk around in their memories? I'm sorry, I just had to bring that up first. You're really not getting it.

And I witnessed that, I just understood that the memories just jumped around a bit due to the damage that was done to those memories when he was a child. Ultimately though, this still reads as: ME NO HAVE INTERACTIONS. ME AM ANGRY MAN. And I'm just not getting anything else from it other than that.

This just about you, control, the game not giving it to you, and you flipping out.

Nowhere was this more apparent than the shocking twist! when Johnny's brother was introduced. What a backfire of an attempt at storytelling.

How so? You can make the claim, but you haven't explained the claim. This is just more angry man ranting. To be honest, I was expecting something traumatic to have happened in his youth. Everything was leading up to that, there were so many clues. Like Johnny not knowing why he wanted to go to the moon. But I'm not surprised that you didn't pick up on these clues. You just wanted everything handed to you on a silver platter without ever having to think.

Now see, I've heard a good rule - mainly in the context of murder mysteries - but I think it holds for story-telling generally: 'Never introduce a hitherto-secret twin'.

Sigh. That's not even relevant and you know why it isn't. This is the point where my voice has just dropped into sarcastic tones, and I'm sounding like Kay from MiB in my head because you know why this isn't relevant, squirt.

Think about it.

The twin angle is because the twin could be the murderer, this means that it would be hard for a person to predict the true murderer if there was an unknown twin. But that's not relevant because this isn't a murder story. To even bring the twin up in this matter is just grasping... straws! Straws! More straws! You need more straws! I mean, really. This is just... silly.

This was really, really silly. This is where your whole post fell apart.

The traumatic event could have been anything. Even his mother dying. But then you would have said something similar about his mother, wouldn't you?

Good grief.

Oh you can have twins, that's fine. But not secret ones. Never. Because that gambit doesn't reveal a new story to the reader, but only rob him of the old one.

Not that To the Moon ever did that at any point. It was a consistent story from the start to the end. But I think that you didn't pick up on the many, many clues that something traumatic happened in Johnny's youth, and because of that, when the twist happened you were angry that you didn't see it coming. Because you predict everything! I know that mindset.

See, this is what you're angry about. You're angry that the game wasn't completely straightforward with you. But then you'd probably damn every book, film, and game in the same breath that isn't. Because it's not straightforward it's automatically bad. And there goes your credibility in my eyes. I'm sorry.

You just want a straightforward, simple story that you can predict and have complete control of.

To the Moon wasn't that, so you went crazy.

Yeah.

But To the Moon is a brilliant game, it's just not for you. You're just not the sort to go poking through clues, perusing an unusual setting, or trying to piece things together. I can only imagine how you'd react to a good detective novel that didn't involve murder. You'd probably burn it in a fit.

That's exactly the bombshell To The Moon drops though.

It's not a bombshell if you were expecting there to have been something traumatic.

And not only that, but it piles on tragedy, for see the twin died while only a child! Ah, alas alack! And Johnny was forced to forget all this, all his life, oh my tears!

Yes. So? This is basic emotional manipulation. Lots of stories, films, and games have done it and I don't think that it's a bad thing. I think that you're just grasping for straws again. Like I said, I imagine that you'd be a lot of fun to take to a Disney film. I mean, you'd be the guy standing up and screaming at the screen when a character just pulls through after assumedly dying, and you'd be yelling loudly about how predictable it was and not getting it at all.

You just don't get it. It's fine. It's not for you. That doesn't make it bad.

No! Look: the consequences of that can't have been what the game told us they were. The consequences should've been enormous, impossibly weighty, on Johnny's life. His mother musta been commitably lunatic to react as she did! His whole town must've formed a conspiracy to keep it all hush hush from him. His friends, his girlfriend, everyone he regarded as close, must've been continually consciously hiding it from him, and for no discernable reason either. And there's no way he wouldn't have found himself haunted by the trauma, beta-blockers be damned.

You know, this happens all the time. When a tragedy happens, people just don't talk about it. It's human nature.

Again it feels like you're grasping at straws.

And I feel you completely misunderstood the point that they were trying to make with the beta blockers, which I explained above. To be honest, I think you missed a lot of the understanding that To the Moon conveyed, because you were so set on hating it that you had your version of it in your head, rather than the version that the game was trying to convey to you. Like a true scenester, you were ready to hate it from the moment you started it up, I suspect.

And what you're trying to explain, awkwardly, is a 'bait and switch method.' But I can't think of the game ever having pulled that. Again, there were obviously strange things that happened within Johnny's youth, and there were plenty of clues. You just overlooked the clues for the obvious answer. And you got angry at the game when it wasn't as obvious as you thought it was.

I had a fairly good idea of a couple of things that would happen:

1. There would be a traumatic incident in Johnny's youth where something pretty awful happened.
2. There would have been something between Johnny and River that would have affected him throughout his entire life.

I mean, come on... the clues.

"It's like she wants something from me."

Good grief. You must have been totally oblivious. With some of the clues the game was screaming them at you, and yet you completely overlooked them. I think you're being unintelligent just because you want to hate the game.

(More to come.)

[Wulf]

But no. All that, casually dismissed.

When was it ever casually dismissed? The worsening of River's condition was because Johnny forgot. But you clearly didn't understand that, either. Sigh. See, the whole point of the story was leading up to that. Yes, River had a condition, but her condition got so much worse BECAUSE Johnny couldn't remember. And they made this very clear.

The only question was WHAT couldn't he remember? Now I was asking myself that question. Clearly you were not.

Similar logic-implosions happen with the reveal of River's condition. The implications are huge, and deeply troubling: that Johnny dated her, that he - there's no other word for it - abused her as he did, that she was so shut off from him that she never mentioned their true first meeting and yet they got married and lived together and never once sought counselling or help.

Sigh. This is because he remembered things but only vaguely, and it was only details specifically that were affected by this, rather than... say... knowledge, skills, and feelings. I think you're being purposefully misleading just so that you can propagate your hate of the game. Either there's a lot you misunderstood about the story, or you're just lying out of some insane need to slate it.

Unobservant or scenester? I can't decide.

Johnny felt the same way about River the first time he saw her because part of his mind still had those feelings stored, he just couldn't remember the details. To him, it must have felt like love at first sight. Why didn't River mention it? She wasn't neurotypical. But here's the thing you're missing: Neither was he. Yes, Johnny was a bit disturbed.

That Johnny was a bit disturbed was the whole point of it.

The game painted him as a neurotypical, but there were always hints of there being something wrong with him. And that having his memories robbed from him like that affected him more than anyone could have imagined, that it altered his perceptions, and that it left him with feelings and vague images that he'd never be able to understand.

But the world that we first entered, and all along as we travelled back through it, never seemed to recognise its true state of affairs, even though it bloody well should've because it was made clear from its chronologically earliest moment that this is how things were.

No, it shouldn't have. You wanted it to be straightforward but it wasn't. The game had a surprise for you and you didn't like it. Again, this is more about you feeling indignant about your intelligence being slighted by a 'mere game' than it is anything else. I've been getting that vibe from you from the outset. Just a very pseudo-intellectual vibe.

It was a story about secrets and different human mindsets. And you've approached it in a very closed-minded way.

Perhaps it's because I'm not neurotypical myself, but I understood it all much better than you did. And I can tell you that there are a lot of things that you just don't talk about. You just get on with life. The story made a lot of sense in regards to human nature.

Here's another example [...]

Make it stop.

[...] of some frightening truths lying underneath the surface: River is simultaneously portrayed as different and an outcast and in need of care and medical attention, and yet also as pretty and marriageable and loveable.

No, that's not at all right. Johnny on many occasions said that living with River was hard. Even Nick said to him at one point that he doesn't know how he manages to deal with River's crazy. Being in love with someone doesn't mean that they're easy to love. You're seeing it from the perspective of someone that did love her, however, and you don't seem to be able to make the distinction.

So, again, another misunderstanding or another lie.

I don't mean to say autism means you aren't marriagable [...]

Ho ho ho. Of course you don't.

What I'm pointing out is, when a story sets a character up as being caught between two identities like that, well that's something that's got to be explored. But it isn't.

That's because she wasn't caught up between two identities. There was only her through the eyes of Johnny. Anything else is something you've implied.

And the unspoken implications are really really dark, and running completely counter to the story the game is trying to tell you.

Again, implications.

That's the core of what I disliked. The story continually reframed what the situation was, but never acknowledged this, [...]

Because it didn't. It just wasn't completely obvious about what the truth of the story was, but the story was the same from start to end. You were just oblivious. And that's made you angry man angree.

And that makes me sad. Sad because To the Moon is getting slated by someone who didn't even bother to try to read the story, let alone understand it.

[...] being so focussed on piling on pathos and emotion that it didn't recognise the consequence of what it was saying in the first place.

No, you didn't recognise what it was trying to say all along. If you could just admit that, then that would be fine. And that's what you're secretly trying to admit underneath all of this, but you can't quite bring yourself to admit it. It'd be too undignified.

It became obvious that River's autism, Johnny's twin brother, the characters and situations and developments, were all only in the story as devices, not things unto themselves. They were mere onion under those tear ducts.

I've gone on at length as to why this isn't the case and I don't care to repeat myself. But no, it was all part of a cohesive story, it's just that you didn't want to read it as one. Again, I've explained why, not doing it again. I'm already exhausted at having to go through all this.

I really disliked that. I didn't like how the story unfolded so artificially, unfairly;

Unfairly? *raised eyebrow.*

I didn't like how its plot twists had no genuine ramifications for the actual plot;

You mean like how the rabbit didn't? Okay.

I didn't like how there was no meaning to the world except to set you up for one particular story that could only be viewed from one particular angle;

You mean like how it obviously wasn't that you were seeing it through the eyes of one man, and that you had an entire, actual world there to interactive with - and that that wasn't fleshed out made you angry? Okay.

I didn't like how it then played up a saccharine, meaning-void ending that's purpose is to elicit no deeper a thought than "D'awwww".

You mean how those Disney films are all completely shit because they emotionally manipulate you? Okay.

It toyed with its own concepts, with its players emotions, with real world ideas and touchstones...just to make you go "D'awww".'

And those things were all completely terrible, and things that a game should never do? Okay.

That is not good writing.

To the contrary, I'd say that the writing was a work of brilliance.

That is not good reading.

And the gameplay stuff? Pffff. Not even going to go there.

[FuriKuri!]

Wulf your posts are just like... unchecked agression, man! I'm in your corner but I didn't even bother to read more than half of what you said because it was just overtly caustic.

Hiya guys, Kan from Freebird here.

Hi Kan, good to know you've had a look at this thread and looking at the above I don't blame you for not wading into a lot of the discussion as you'd be here awhile (to say the least). Even if you only continue to read that's fine, I hope some of the above will give you something to mull over.

I said earlier that mechanically To The Moon was the worst game I ever played. I'll be a bit fairer and restate that it's the worst game (mechanically) I've ever completed. ;) That's as back-handed a compliment as anyone is likely to get so in the spirit of constructive criticism (and that the thread hasn't really covered this aspect at all);

* The tile puzzles. Too detached to mean anything, I just didn't care about them in the slightest. Unecessary padding that just served to keep me away from the meat of the game.

* I felt a lot of your UI elements and stuff were kinda pointless. The inventory etc. screens were never used save to have a couple of jokes tucked away inside of them. Save the programming time and ditch 'em too, it'll make for a more streamlined experience (unless of course you already have plans to really make use of these).

* The game starts off well in giving me choice (or at least the illusion of choice) but as soon as we jumped into John's memories that all evaporated. It's been stated above that the game could've been reduced to a continue button for input without losing much and I share that feeling. Appreciate branching choices are a form of geometric progression and can take up a lot of time with little payoff (if not exploited well) but I'd say that this is definately something worth focussing on.

* I think you'd have a lot to gain if you could make the 'memory link hunt' feel more investigative. About the best example I can give for this are the two Condemned FPS games by Monolith. Occaisonally you come across crime scenes and need to study the surroundings/objects present and basically construct a narrative. Not saying you should just rip that but it does have interesting parallels with the spirit of your game and also you weren't required to actually get it 100% right to progress.

[Stormspirt]

I didn't like it. Mostly because the ending derailed the experience for me. I was quite absorbed until then.

Just two things been eating at me since finishing.

1. The darker elements of John and Rivers relationship.

Its not so much I had a problem with it then not understanding why it seems to fly over the heads of many other players and reviews.

The story makes it clear, on at least two occasions, that Johns entire reason for wanting to approach River was because she was different. She was a novelty, meant to adorn his arm and deal with his own issues of not wanting to be average. What's more, he knows this. It isn't done subconsciously, which is why he eventually tells her.

Thats not to say he didn't love River, but that doesn't change the fact that their entire relationship was built on a foundation of Johns calculated selfishness.

2. The Ending

I thought the ending killed the soul of what was a powerful story. Johns desire to go to the moon wasn't literal. He wanted his wife back. Yet the narrative identifys River as a problem. To the point it was worth risking erasing her from his life's memory entirely. She becomes disposable and it's blind luck she appears in time at all.

Granted this might be more my mind rebelling against the very notion of having ones life rewritten and replaced with an idealized bit of syrupy sweet fluff.

[Keep]

Wow I guess I missed this over Christmas...

Hiya guys, Kan from Freebird here.

I've just finished reading this entire thread so far. I have to say, I'm really impressed by how mature and constructive the points are. Many thanks for that, it was a fantastic read.

Hi, thanks for reading it Kan! Wow it's very sound of you to read one nut's personal complaining and react like that. I'll be keeping an eye on Freebird's upcoming stuff for that response alone.


Wulf, if you wanna discuss this game with me - and I'd like to because you raised points that invalidated some of my complaints - then this shit:

I suppose some just won't get To the Moon.

You didn't get To the Moon, that's fine.

you didn't get it

You don't do 'feeling,' and you didn't get it.

It also sounds like you're angry about

You just dislike the lack of what you think is necessary gameplay.

This, once again, proves that you don't really get it.

Apparently you didn't get any of this.

None that you actually got, anyway.

Again, I'll just say that you didn't get it.

there are bound to be things about that that feel unnatural and take you out of your comfort zone, which is what I think this is about.

You just have to be more open-minded, whereas you're coming off old fashioned and just hating it for

This seems to be more about you being closed-minded

Again, it sounds like you're angry that the game

It's just sounding like you're angry at it for

You just refused to see it out of your arbitrary hate of the game.

But really, this tells me less about To the Moon and more about you, as a person.

You hate

You're annoyed that the game was intelligent enough to keep you guessing, it made you angry. KEEP SMASH.

See, you seem to be the sort that

You seem to be a bit of a control freak, you need everything your way.

And an angry man who doesn't like being teased.

You totally didn't get To the Moon, see.

I mean... wow. You're just too closed-minded to, I think.

I think that you just didn't get the whole 'memories' thing at all. Or a lot about the story in general.

You're really not getting it.

Ultimately though, this still reads as: ME NO HAVE INTERACTIONS. ME AM ANGRY MAN.

This just about you, control, the game not giving it to you, and you flipping out.

This is just more angry man ranting.

See, this is what you're angry about.

You're just not the sort to

You just don't get it. It's fine. It's not for you.

To be honest, I think you missed a lot of the understanding that To the Moon conveyed, because you were so set on hating it

Like a true scenester, you were ready to hate it from the moment you started it up, I suspect.

And you got angry at the game when it wasn't as obvious as you thought it was.

I think you're being unintelligent just because you want to hate the game.

But you clearly didn't understand that, either. Sigh.

I think you're being purposefully misleading just so that you can propagate your hate of the game. Either there's a lot you misunderstood about the story, or you're just lying out of some insane need to slate it.

Unobservant or scenester? I can't decide.

Again, this is more about you feeling indignant about your intelligence being slighted by a 'mere game' than it is anything else.

And you've approached it in a very closed-minded way.

You were just oblivious. And that's made you angry man angree.

...is inappropriate. Drop it next time.

[Dexter]

Well, I finally played it and I hated the living shit out of it xD

Pretentious teen drama throughout with rather boring to non-existent gameplay and near the end I just wanted it to end already and be over with.

I also couldn't get into the story much because it constantly reminded me of contrived Japanese visual novels and seemed kind of hipster-ish, using words like "neurotypical" that make me cringe at their sheer utterance. It's strange because I'm usually not that choosy with stories in games as I am in movies or TV series, but this just brought up the worst in it. If I had to sum it up it's the story of a boy/man who marries a mentally-impaired woman because he finds her "interesting", which in turn gives him some happy moments but ends up ruining his life and draining him of any ambition. But the worst is that the game implies both of them accepting a *lighthouse* as some sort of a surrogate child that they have to take care of and that the husband is, despite not being mentally deranged and full well knowing about the condition of his wife being irresponsible enough to put the well-being of a lighthouse in front of hers. It's something I expect a teenager to write.

The cringeworthy ending finally sealed the deal.

I might not have reacted this badly if everyone wasn't praising it as some sort of messiah and breakthrough in game storytelling... The upside is that it made me want to kill stuff, so I'll likely play some Shooter next, finished "Spec Ops: The Line" a few days ago and liked that and its story a lot in comparison. :P

[Drake Sigar]

I also couldn't get into the story much because it constantly reminded me of contrived Japanese visual novels and seemed kind of hipster-ish

I don't even know what that means anymore. Seems like everything I enjoy has been called hipsterish at some point.

This old thread made me realize how much I miss Wulf.

[Heliocentric]

I don't even know what that means anymore. Seems like everything I enjoy has been called hipsterish at some point.

This old thread made me realize how much I miss Wulf.

If you are actually enjoying it its not hipster, hipster is making out you like crap you don't to seem deep/get popular.

I miss wulf, but i'd still skip alot of his more bile filled posts, but that's just it, I'd hate to be sat on a long train journey with wulf, but on the internet he's great. YAY FOR WULF AND YAY FOR SKIM READING.