Some Thoughts on Inside and Cinematic Gaming (Review)

still suck d* k? coz I have money

I am glad to see a critical review of this since I had mixed opinions on the game but I have to say I would have enjoyed it less if it was more “cinematic” with less puzzles. Even so I have to agree the game element of it hurts the tone a bit. A particular example that comes to mind for me is the siren (I don’t mean an alarm but don’t want to spoil too much…), which to me was the scariest enemy. But after the first time I died to it and respawned my fear was gone, because I became acutely aware I was just playing a game so I could just continue as before.

The main problem with Inside as I see it (other than the repeated 'trial and error' narrative immersion destructive instant restarts) is that no reason is offered whatsoever as to WHY this entire society is apparently totally fine with shooting / siccing attack dogs on a small child (again for no other reason than he is running somewhere)

you know my first thought when I saw this game was "wow how interesting it would be, if you´re actually a kid lost in the woods and the people searching are actually trying to help and save you, but since we are without context, we automatically assume, that we have to avoid them, but the game could be over on the first screen already"
I still find that thought interesting, but it wasnt to be. INstead the first time I got caught was pretty shocking to me I thought "hey take it easy you scumbags, I´m just a kid!" but it got way too weird and disgusting for my taste. I do like weirdness, but I think the more grounded in reality weirdness and shockfactor of the first scenes was much more effective.

I thought the game lasted just long enough and was flawlessly paced.
It had a perfect mix of action set pieces and puzzles.
Concerning the possibility of dying, it's true that repeated deaths
can take away from the intensity of a set piece if the player dies too often,
but NOT being able to die robs the experience of any sense of threat.

An unenjoyable game that I turned off after 15 minutes. Trial and error 'die to figure out puzzles' game without a purpose, plot, or motivation. What a waste of my money.

I agree with your thoughts on this game… I just recently completed it and, as an artist, I was inspired by the overall aesthetic and intentional ambiguity of its 'story' or 'experience'. HOWEVER, I also played Limbo somewhat recently, and while playing Inside it was clear to me that the gameplay itself was almost a secondary experience… this seemed OK to me at first, because I guess I see the value of gaming as a whole to me more of an experience everyone should be able to enjoy (so the more movie-like the better right?).

But I agree with you that there is some imbalance perhaps that Inside embodies between a well thought out / beautifully scripted cinematic experience and an interactive experience (Inside falters on the latter).

Still, this game gave me some extremely memorable moments. Most notably was the sound-wave portion… a perfect example of near flawless aesthetics execution (level design seemed Limbo-esque during this part, sound and music obviously fantastic). Also, the puzzle directly before this part was very well thought out imo.

Overall the game is a great inspiration to me as an aspiring game developer. Its flaws no doubt will stick with me as I ponder the perhaps never-ending dilemma of 'games as art' and the balance of giving the user control vs scripting their experience to the point where they almost become an 'observer' rather than a player.

Again, great video and thanks for the insight!

Loved most of your videos but I'm disappointed a bit by this one because it seems like you're critiquing Inside for things you praised other games for. For one, I never viewed Inside as cinematic. In fact, from a presentation, atmosphere, and story standpoint, I saw it as the linear 2D scroller equivalent of Bloodborne(minus the combat of course), a game you praised. In the same way that Bloodborne beats you down in a harsh world and turns your whole perspective on it's side half way through, so too does Inside. Bloodborne originally portrays it's world as a generic gothic setting with werewolves and vampires, but halfway through, the façade comes off(the blood moon) as you realize the world is not as it seems and new lovecraftian inspired monsters come out of the framework and all of the themes of lovecraft(madness and beings beyond our comprehension) show up and you start questioning your own purpose. Inside in the same way portrays your character as an innocent child in a harsh world and you think he's just trying to escape the oppressive world he lives in but then the third act happens and the game turns you on it's head and makes you wonder what every action you made really meant or who your character really was. That's why I thought your view that the game lulls in the last part so confusing because that's literally the crescendo moment. It feels almost like the combination of the blood moon from Bloodborne and the "ascending bell tower" moments you described in Dark Souls. You technically reach your "goal" and become empowered from it but you become empowered in a way that you never expected and it changes your whole perspective on what your character's motives were. I also viewed the number of deaths in Inside completely differently from you. Considering how violent and vulgar many of the deaths are, it seemed like the devs wanted you to die(and die a lot) in a way similar to how From wanted you to die in Bloodborne to show the various obstacles in your path that are truly all conspiring against you and to show the legitimate harshness of the world. I also thought you were very vague in your examples of these "game parts getting in the way." When you mentioned positive parts of the game, you gave specific examples like the monitoring walking in a line scene or the big camera drawback in the submarine. You kept saying Inside's emphasis on being cinematic gets in the way of the game part of it and vice versa but it never seemed like you a gave a clear example of this.

I hate Inside because it pretends to have a narrative, but in reality it doesn't.
All those weird machines you see, that had me wondering what they're for, are just obstacles with no meaning beyond that.
The whole thing just makes absolutely no sense.

Interestingly, i understand your point perfectly, but can't bring myself to agree. I think the puzzles were really interesting and made the game seem way more compelling and feel more like well, a game.

I believe that if the game was setpieces only it would get tiresome really soon, and they would probably lose some of their impact. The puzzles also serve as a form of indirect narrative, like the way you control people through those machines in the ceiling.

this is spot on, you can tell the developers wanted the momentum of the game to push the player forward constantly, from the way the checkpoints are placed, you respawn right before your death and off you go