Creatures Such As We

Having played through Mass Effect 3 again recently, I could not help but view "Creatures" as a commentary on that game, and in particular on the discussions revolving around its ending. I did not check if that is even possible, but in any case: "Creatures" covers a lot of game theory relevant to ME 3, like whether players or authors should decide a games ending, how romance should be portrayed in games, the meaning of self-sacrifice, whether games should mirror life or rather provide means of escape, etc.

This is all packed into a well paced story on the PCs moon adventure with the designers of their favorite game, including that game as game within the game.

So why is "Creatures" not five stars for me? I think it lacks a bit on the game side of things. Most choices I really had to think about concerned my opinion on the game theory questions mentioned above. The choices regarding the actual plot seemed a bit bland in comparison, even though the story itself is quite compelling.

That caveat aside, in my opinion anyone even remotely interested in game design (and romance!) should play "Creatures Such As We".

I first played Creatures Such As We a few years ago, and I remember that I didn't think much of it back then. But, after playing it more recently, I've come to appreciate it a lot more.

Creatures Such As We is a metafictional (am I using that term correctly?) story about video games that functions as one of the video games it discusses. On one level, you play as a tour guide on the moon, guiding a group of visiting game developers through various touristy activities. On the other level, your character is playing a game-within-a-game, which happens to be developed by the same group of aforementioned game developers. This game-within-a-game had a highly controversial "bad" ending, almost akin to the original ending of Mass Effect 3 (the author denies it as an influence). The player character suddenly has the opportunity to ask the game developers about the ending. Of course, being a Choice of Game, there is romance here: you can pursue a romantic relationship or friendship with one of the game developers, and you might stay in contact even after they leave. There is a bit of stage magic here; the dramatic life-and-death moments always happen to your chosen romance option. The characters themselves are all well-realized and unique, but they feel sort of like tokens, both demographically and for their particular viewpoints.

All of this is all used as a backdrop for a series of philosophical conversations. The author leads us through "meta" discussions like the role of the author vs the viewer, representation in media, and escapism, and more general philosophical discussions on death and life and stuff. I think this worked better for me now than when I first played this because I have more experience with both making and playing interactive fiction, and I can relate to the issues being discussed more. It felt interesting and engaging in a way that "philosophical discussions in video games" usually don't for me.

Then there's the theme of corporate malfeasance. Your employer cares more about good appearances than the well-being of its employees or the safety of its customers. The visitors to the moon base are regularly put into life-threatening situations with little backup or real information. You are overworked without much free time, and it's clear that there are people even worse off. Then there is a subplot where one of the tourists has a flu-like illness that is covered up; it's obvious that this was made in pre-covid times. At the same time, an EA-like giant gaming corporation is seeking to acquire the game developers, who are somewhat ambivalent about the deal (I don't know if you-as-the-tour-guide can change the outcome here).

Overall, I feel like the setting, characters, game-within-a-game, and philosophical discussions all meshed together really well. I appreciated the meta moments where it felt like the game was critiquing itself.

A lot of people love this game, like really really love it, so I'm not going to tell anyone not to play it (especially since you can play it for free), but it just wasn't my cup of tea. It's right in the game description that this is a philosophical romance, but neither the philosophical nor romantic elements really hit home for me personally, and it's not the most exciting game apart from that. I did enjoy the setting (you're a tour guide on the moon), the quiet vibe, and some of the meta game-within-a-game elements nonetheless.

Much of the game is just you talking to the NPCs (the developers of the video game your MC is playing through) about big topics: life, death, art, motivation, game development, and so on. The characters are engaging enough to talk to, but I found that many of these conversations just didn't work for me in this format. The topics themselves are important ones, but for me they are big enough questions that I've already wrestled with most of them before and had much better experiences talking about them IRL than with some NPCs. It felt like I was often just repeating the same sentiment three choices in a row instead of having a real back and forth conversation.

Based on how other people talk about this game, I think maybe it's the sort of game that'll really hit home if you're in the right kind of mindset for it. If you're interested in these topics, but maybe haven't already formed your opinion on them, you might get more out of the themes than I did.

Romance was okay but maybe a bit forced/rushed. You only really spend a few days with these people, so I found it hard to believe the connection was as strong as the game suggested.

Not bad overall, might even warrant a replay down the road, but I'm not feeling that motivated just now.