Op-ed: The problem with Somerville (or the fine art of telling me what to do)
Video games are an illusion. Some of the very best make us forget that, momentarily convincing us that we're exercising that fanciful thing called free will to determine an undeterminable outcome and somehow influence the painstakingly engineered programming purring away behind the scenes.
The reality is that we're all puppets on a string, pirouetting away to the tune of a development team like a bunch of well-drilled ballet dancers. It might sound counterintuitive, but sometimes selling that illusion means actively stripping choice away from players. Make them believe they're the masters of their own destiny while guiding them down a preordained path without ever breaking cover.
After all, by picking up the controller players become part of the deception. They're offering to suspend their disbelief so you can whisk them away. They know the outcome is a forgone conclusion – or "conclusions," if you're playing with branching narratives – but sometimes the key to convincing them otherwise is ensuring they do exactly what they're told, precisely when they're told to do it.
Therein lies the problem with Somerville.
Developed by Jumpship and produced by Dino Patti, the co-founder and former CEO of Limbo and Inside developer Playdead, Somerville has been touted by the press as something of a pseudo-successor to those acclaimed titles. The obvious connection fo Playdead aside, it's easy to see why. The sci-fi adventure delivers a wordless show-don't-tell yarn that provides an existential commentary on what it means to live while deploying incredible sound design, art direction, and emotive animation.
There's so much to admire about Somerville, from the opening act that sees a quiet homestead and loving family torn asunder by an
Read more on gamedeveloper.com
