Papo & Yo

[Bruno de Figueiredo]

I don't know if this has been published here already. I've been interested in this game ever since it was first announced and I'm quite glad to know it is still alive. In fact it was mentioned briefly on E3 yesterday, in the midst of all the glitz and glamour of Sony's triple-A productions.

Papo & Yo seems to address some interesting subjects which we wouldn't normally associate with games: a blend of childhood nostalgia and the creation of a fantasy world as an escape from the reality of the Brazilian favela. In this video { http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oowHCwOUgk }, the designer Vander Caballero speaks candidly about what he intends to achieve with his creation. I think it to be a very heartening and unassuming developer diary and I invite all readers to give it a look.

[Michaël Samyn]

Looks very nice. And the creator clearly has his heart in the right place.
I worry about it becoming too gamey, though.
Let's wait and see.

[QXD-me]

It does look intriguing (if very gamey). The creator also did a pretty interesting interview on killscreen recently.

[ghostwheel]

Visually, it's amazing! Does anyone know how to get hold of him? Invite him to the forum!

[Bruno de Figueiredo]

I will extend him an invitation.

[Chris W]

This looks really beautiful.  I've always been captivated by the vistas of shantytowns, even though I am necessarily brought crashing back to earth when it sinks in what they really are.  I'm not really worried about how gamey it is, as long as the gameplay is a natural expression of what he's doing, rather than shoehorning gameplay in just to have gameplay.  From the video it looks very playful, a flight of fancy, if you will.

[ghostwheel]

This looks really beautiful.  I've always been captivated by the vistas of shantytowns, even though I am necessarily brought crashing back to earth when it sinks in what they really are.  I'm not really worried about how gamey it is, as long as the gameplay is a natural expression of what he's doing, rather than shoehorning gameplay in just to have gameplay.  From the video it looks very playful, a flight of fancy, if you will.

I don't think the problem is with gameplay. The problem is with unnecessary gameplay. It's sort of like in the 80s how every metal/hard-rock song had to have a guitar solo in it, whether it was appropriate or not.

[Marco Turetta]

I don't think the problem is with gameplay. The problem is with unnecessary gameplay. It's sort of like in the 80s how every metal/hard-rock song had to have a guitar solo in it, whether it was appropriate or not.

So true! It took me maybe a decade to intimately accept that a rock song can be great even without a guitar solo 
But I went through it and now I am a better person

Maybe in ten years (almost) nobody will feel outraged by games missing combat, win/lose states, achievements etc...

[shredingskin]

I played the game a couple of days ago. It´s a good game, but it doesn`t have a very clear gameplay direction in my opinion.

There are a couple of mechanics that are pretty much the basis of the game, none of them are very interactive or much fun, but for a 3 or 4 hours long game it doesnt end up being stale.

The thing is that it didnt go for a "artsy game" nor to a simple platform game, its too gamey for a not game, but its too easy for a platformer and too simple for an adventure game. The game holds your hand too much, even in the "puzzles" (all are fairly easy)you have optional tutorials that tells you what to do.

The story is OK, the game tries to play with symbolism, but at the end trows everything at your face saying "yo look what we did" treating the player as an idiot that cant unite two points. And again, it has some cutscenes that breaks the flow in the game because they are not very well developed (a couple of those, then they forget about it, and goes explaining everything in the game).

The art direction is simply beautiful, you want to play to see what else is there to see, probably the best point in the game.

I had a good time playing it, but it just so self aware of itself as a game, and ends up being a poor gaming experience and a bland "experimental" experience.

I guess they tried to make it "more appealing" to masses, but actually thought that the people that will play the game would not be "intelectual" enough to understand a very VERY simple story.

[Michaël Samyn]

I was surprised by how old school the game design was here. And I actually think this game works as proof of the notgames premise that gameplay undermines meaning. There was not a single section in the game where I actually felt something, other than the usual challenge-puzzle-solve experience of the Playstation 2 generation. We're currently stuck on the make-the-monster-angry-on-purpose level and we just can't bring ourselves to try it again, to get through it. Everybody says this is a short game but it's far too long for me.

And I don't like killing frogs.

[Albin Bernhardsson]

We're currently stuck on the make-the-monster-angry-on-purpose level

I haven't played it myself (don't have a PS3) but that seems very odd to me. If keeping the symbolism consistent, wouldn't that mean getting your dad drunk on purpose being necessary to progress?

The review in the newspaper said essentially the same thing as you, that the gameplay keeps distracting from the story and meaning of the work.