I feel there's a growing awareness that many auters turn to videogames, when their aspirations for Hollywood don't pan out. Overly-long cutscenes and gorgeous visuals are increasingly paired with substandard gameplay, sometimes boiling down to outright QTEs. Discussions about this trend mainly take place in the AA to AAA space - some cheeky video editors make whole "films" out of the several hours' worth of cutscenes in a single game, and snarky commenters ask "At this point, why not just make a movie?"

Small indie point-and-click games are generally given a pass; it's understood that the hand-drawn environments and animations in games like Machinarium and Samorost could never be scaled-up to make full film productions. But I think the defining trait of Lumino City - the single fact behind its critical reception and awards, its middling metacritic score, and the thumbs-down I'm giving it now - is that this really could have been a feature film. In fact, I think it should have been.

How many of the BAFTA and IGF and GC judges have actually played this game? All the way through, with no guides or hints? The screenshot quotes nearly all discuss the visuals, the scenes and the "craftsmanship" behind them - one quote is even a reaction to the trailer.

The trailer!

Let me tell you, I'll cop to the fact that I'm not a big fan of point-and-clicks, but the actual gameplay of this game is aggressively bad. You spend most of your time with a very vague goal, having no idea how the actions you're undertaking are bringing you closer to accomplishing it. The visuals are very pretty, but do an absolutely terrible job of actually relaying useful information. More than once, the area I needed to click on to proceed was so nondescript and so small that even clicking randomly on the screen couldn't get me un-stuck - I had to consult a video guide to find out what I was meant to be doing.

And the developer knows this. At some points in the game it's clear they've thrown their hands in the air and said "I'll just put a circle in this case showing where you're supposed to click!" NO. THAT WAS YOUR CUE TO PROVIDE AN OPTION TO HIGHLIGHT ALL CLICKABLE OBJECTS. Ad-hoc solutions to the worst offenders doesn't make your game better, it makes the visibility of the rest of your game's problems worse.

These half-measures don't only extend to finding clickable areas - they apply to the puzzles, too. I had no idea the 500-page "hand book" was anything more than a concept sketch portfolio, and judging by the other reviews, I am far from alone. Don't get me wrong - some of the puzzles in this game are quite good. But the bad ones are really bad. At less than 15 minutes into the game I encountered a problem that seemed outright unsolvable. I discovered upon consulting a guide that I was approaching the problem correctly, but buggy behavior on the game's part meant that I had to execute the correct step several times in a row before it would actually "stick." The animations were notably buggy in several areas as well.

I could go on, but here's my point: This is the first game I've ever played that genuinely made me wish I was watching a Let's Play, rather than holding the controller myself. The visuals are that good and the gameplay is that bad. I wanted to see the game, but I no longer wanted to play the game. And that is just sad.

Obviously my thumbs-down review is equivalent to spitting in the ocean, since this game has already won its awards and sold its copies. But I think the developer should have taken a 20-minute demo reel, shopped it around to online services like Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, and Netflix, secured funding for production and VO, and just ran with it as a full animated feature.

Because in my opinion, the gameplay is by far the worst part of this game. This is the first indie game, I feel, to earn that question of, "At this point, why not just make a movie?" Obviously, being the first in that area will earn its creator no small number of accolades from judges who may or may not ever need to actually play through the thing. But I'm not judging a movie, I'm judging a videogame. And I wasn't impressed by my play through.

Not recommended.

[h1]Videogame Oscar Bait.[/h1] I feel there's a growing awareness that many auters turn to videogames, when their aspirations for Hollywood don't pan out. Overly-long cutscenes and gorgeous visuals are increasingly paired with substandard gameplay, sometimes boiling down to outright QTEs. Discussions about this trend mainly take place in the AA to AAA space - some cheeky video editors make whole "films" out of the several hours' worth of cutscenes in a single game, and snarky commenters ask [b]"At this point, why not just make a movie?"[/b] Small indie point-and-click games are generally given a pass; it's understood that the hand-drawn environments and animations in games like Machinarium and Samorost could never be scaled-up to make full film productions. But I think the defining trait of Lumino City - the single fact behind its critical reception and awards, its middling metacritic score, and the thumbs-down I'm giving it now - is that this really [i]could[/i] have been a feature film. In fact, I think it [i]should[/i] have been. How many of the BAFTA and IGF and GC judges have actually played this game? All the way through, with no guides or hints? The screenshot quotes nearly all discuss the visuals, the scenes and the "craftsmanship" behind them - one quote is even a reaction to the trailer. The [i]trailer![/i] Let me tell you, I'll cop to the fact that I'm not a big fan of point-and-clicks, but the actual gameplay of this game is [i]aggressively[/i] bad. You spend most of your time with a very vague goal, having no idea how the actions you're undertaking are bringing you closer to accomplishing it. The visuals are very pretty, but do an absolutely terrible job of actually [i]relaying useful information[/i]. More than once, the area I needed to click on to proceed was so nondescript and so small that even clicking randomly on the screen couldn't get me un-stuck - I had to consult a [i]video guide[/i] to find out what I was meant to be doing. And the developer [i]knows this.[/i] At some points in the game it's clear they've thrown their hands in the air and said "I'll just put a circle in this case showing where you're supposed to click!" NO. THAT WAS YOUR CUE TO PROVIDE AN OPTION TO HIGHLIGHT ALL CLICKABLE OBJECTS. Ad-hoc solutions to the [i]worst[/i] offenders doesn't make your game better, it makes the visibility of the rest of your game's problems worse. These half-measures don't only extend to finding clickable areas - they apply to the puzzles, too. I had no idea the 500-page "hand book" was anything more than a concept sketch portfolio, and judging by the other reviews, I am far from alone. Don't get me wrong - some of the puzzles in this game are quite good. But the bad ones are [i]really[/i] bad. At less than 15 minutes into the game I encountered a problem that seemed outright [i]unsolvable[/i]. I discovered upon consulting a guide that I was approaching the problem correctly, but buggy behavior on the game's part meant that I had to execute the correct step several times in a row before it would actually "stick." The animations were notably buggy in several areas as well. I could go on, but here's my point: This is the first game I've ever played that genuinely made me wish I was watching a Let's Play, rather than holding the controller myself. The visuals are [i]that good[/i] and the gameplay is [i]that bad[/i]. I wanted to [i]see[/i] the game, but I no longer wanted to [i]play[/i] the game. And that is just sad. Obviously my thumbs-down review is equivalent to spitting in the ocean, since this game has already won its awards and sold its copies. But I think the developer should have taken a 20-minute demo reel, shopped it around to online services like Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, and Netflix, secured funding for production and VO, and just ran with it as a full animated feature. Because in my opinion, the gameplay is by [i]far[/i] the worst part of this game. This is the first indie game, I feel, to earn that question of, [b]"At this point, why not just make a movie?"[/b] Obviously, being the first in that area will earn its creator no small number of accolades from judges who may or may not ever need to actually [i]play through[/i] the thing. But I'm not judging a movie, I'm judging a videogame. And I wasn't impressed by my play through. Not recommended.