When I played We Are Chicago, and this is something I brought up in class, I was having an awful time getting the game to run properly. My laptop is a poor excuse for a machine, notable for failing to get out of the first death sequence of The Return of the Obra Dinn before blue-screening (twice) and so while I had hoped it would be able to run We Are Chicago smoothly, I was willing to cope with that not being the case.
But somewhere along the way, I vaguely recall it being about halfway through my experience, it occurred to me that I wasn’t enjoying the game. Even beyond the lag and computer issues, something about We Are Chicago felt off. It was a bit later, after another interesting premise for an interaction between Aaron and his friend was railroaded to its developer-decreed destination, that I realized I didn’t find the game to be any fun. It was interesting, and the game’s narrative was excellent, but the game itself didn’t serve the story. I like interactive narratives, like what We Are Chicago goes for… but I prefer those narratives to actually be interactive. In class my suspicion was confirmed: there is only one overarching path the story of We Are Chicago ever takes.
I don’t mean to be too harsh on the game. I recognize why it’s well-liked, and there were parts that I liked about it as well. I just didn’t have fun. We Are Chicago is probably the best example of a serious game that we’ve played so far–Curtain could count, but I think that’s more of a stretch–and so I use it to pose a question. I’ve seen this happen in other forms of media, but when does a game take being serious and being meant to inform too far and stop being fun? This is to say, when does a serious game–informative, educational, cautionary, or any other serious archetype–forget to be a game in the process of being serious?
I, too, hate bashing indie developers on projects they no doubt poured their hearts into and worked on with limited resources. I think in addition to the technical issues and frustrations, the narrative details could use some more “gamification” in a sense. Example: during the beginning of the game, you took a quiz and all questions are blurred out with our inner monologues while informing the readers that personal life is interfering with our academic performance, this is rather unsubtle and I guarantee almost everyone can agree there are better methods for delivery. Example: Question gradually gets replaced with inner monologues, flipping pages reveals fewer questions and more personal troubles, or just play the audio monologue in the protagonist’s head while requiring players to do actual math to simulate the experience.
My point is that We are Chicago feels less like a game and more like an experience leaning on an unimpressive ya novel, and needs to actually take inspiration from other 3D adventure narratively focused games, like life is strange or those cinematic games, not match their budget, manpower or splendor, but to borrow techniques that actually narratively engages audiences.
It did look like Culture Shock tried to take nods from other narrative-focused games–I caught some flashes of what felt like a Telltale influence–but they didn’t really seem to work when done here. Possibly this was because there weren’t any major changes made to the story by the player’s decisions.
I definitely had similar feelings to you about the game. Although I found parts of the story interesting, I don’t think I could say I found myself really having any fun playing the game. Furthermore, I am not sure any of the gameplay mechanics added to the enjoyability of the game. I understand letting a player choose different options would add to a game if it changed the path of the story, but if it is true that there is only one overarching path for the story, then I don’t see a need for its inclusion.
I don’t think that we are Chicago took its message too far, but I think it took it too lightly with how Aaron and his family are portrayed, along with the lack of interactivity, making it a story rather than a game. I think other stories teach about gang violence more effectively. This game feels like somebody who doesn’t play any games thought to themselves kids like games, so let’s try to get them not to join a gang through one. The game would have been way more enjoyable and made a better point if your actions actually mattered.
I could have phrased it better, but what I meant was that We Are Chicago seemed to take the idea of *being serious* too far, and lost sight of making a fully fleshed-out game, which I assume was the original goal. I think the message is still decently well-delivered, despite being flattened and pretty severely hamstrung by the game around it.