As those who are already vaguely aware of this indie oddity may already know, Mountain is a difficult title to review. Some would say it stretches the definition of a video game to its limit, while other say it’s gone too far and has no right calling itself a game. You can understand why my job of a reviewer feels harder for this tiny curiosity than your average shooter. Does GamerHeadlines think Mountain is a good game? Not really. And nor is it a compelling example of videogames as art. But as a piece of artwork on its own, without being labelled as a video game? Mountain is a phenomenal triumph, and well worth the tiny price of admission.
Mountain is not a video game. Mountain is a painting of a video game.
Replies(1)I think any element of interactivity in a specifically designed form of digital entertainment can be defined as a game.
By the very definition of a game it is defined by a type of activity and a form of play with established rules. Even walking sims have established rules and an end goal. Completion being the goal and reaching that goal becomes the game's objective. In the case of Mountain, if the point is to evoke an emotional response and that response is what the player achieves through interactivity then by all means, that becomes a game.
I think what some people find hard to comprehend is the manipulation of the form of the medium. Just because someone plays with the form and redefines the conventions that have been established since the beginning doesn't make it any less of a game. What it becomes is unconventional.
Some might consider challenge to be the "definition" of a game. Pinball for example, the challenge being to keep the ball from falling. However, couldn't it be argued for a walking sim that the challenge becomes the user making it to the end and discovering something new whether it be in the form of narrative or art? Something the player never experienced is now being experienced through a level of interactivity and in such, that could be what the game is trying to present the player.
So yea, Mountain is a game. It has established rules, it has an end goal, and it asks the player to experience and manipulate the digital environment (sound, images, etc). These are all elements found in any game.
“Mountain is not meant to be ironic, it's not meant to be anything other than what it is.” But there's still things to be found in the game, apparently...
Avoiderdragon:In recent times, the definition of a “game” has been under scrutiny and debate as more and more developers are starting to push the envelope (or pull it back, as detractors would say). This was definitely the case when Gone Home first came out, and critics generally praised it for its poignancy while gamers raged about how it’s merely a “walking simulator”. That squabble is just about to get even hotter with this particular “game”.
A 5?
You are being way too generous.
I think if you're going to make "interactive art", you should still make it interesting. Have any of you played Linger In Shadows? That one held my interest the whole time! Plastic also made Datura, which is more traditional, as far as mechanics are concerned. Still very much an "interactive art" piece, however.
I don't find Mountain particularly interesting. Might as well make it a live wallpaper for Android.