I think what sells this game to me is that it utilizes its setting to drive its character relations. And by setting, I don't mean strictly the sci-fi coding but the environment in which the characters live, one that's heavily tied to a utopian philosophy that could functionally exist in a multitude of settings. The alien planet is more in service to this concept than it is an exploration of its sci-fi premise, but both do tie neatly together to explore the implications of its premise. What I like about this is that it's not treating the merits of its utopia at face value without dismissing its merits. The philosophy preached by the community is not abhorrent, and in practice, the narrative doesn't imply that its followers are deceptive or hypocritical. People do enjoy genuine freedom and prosper from it, the community does genuinely care about the broader needs of everyone, it is genuinely a progressive society where no one is judged on their birth, etc. But where it gets spicy is that certain conflicts arise from all of this, particularly in relation to the nature around them. It's such an incredible dichotomy to play with. People can enjoy a utopian society, but what is the cost of that? It's functionally a "man vs nature" conflict but moreso written to be reflective of a collective than an individual. Philosophically, it asks how do we approach nature in the pursuit of humanity's well-being and the core hook for that is the variety of different approaches to this question. You can believe someone has an abhorrent belief or solutions but it never comes from a place of misunderstanding, where the conclusions they reach can be rationalised in the context of their history and personal life. But what I find compelling is that the impetus is often emotional, that no one suggests their solution out of pragmatism but moreso how they've connected themselves within the dichotomy of nature and broader society. To give an example of this, Nem's characterization stems from the trauma that nature has caused her. She grows to become a militant adult who views nature as a threat due to what it took away from her and her being socially extroverted with the rest of the colony gives her a stronger emotional connection to the colony than it does nature. In contrast, Dys is often seen being mocked or socially distant from his peers and his far more talented sister causes her to be the "shining apple". As a result, Dys finds more comfort in nature and ends up seeing that as more valuable than the colony itself to the point he's willing to go to extremes in service of it. Neither are portrayed as wrong for coming to these conclusions, perhaps their extreme choices are questioned but it's never a case of either being wrong. In fact, the game wants you to be intimate with both. It's also not strictly simplistic as this dichotomy either, characters such as Tang have a very complex emotional output in their place in this dichotomy, while others like Tammy are more concerned about the interpersonal than grand scale, even if the latter is unavoidable. All of this makes the central conflict about humanity's relation to nature all the more fascinating, as it's more tied to how nature affected people than postulating on its abstract idealism. This example also shows another fascinating undercurrent of the title. How our upbringing affects our aging into maturity. There are clear distinctions made between characters in their adulthood and childhood, but I think what drives a lot of playthroughs is exploring how the childhood of every character leads to their adult characterization. I think this is far more intimate than other games that utilise a social link system because you're literally growing up alongside characters and experiencing the consequences the narrative has on them. Characters don't exist to give you validation and will conflict with you over ideological differences, and often times even if you do wholly support them it doesn't mean their ending won't be dour or depressing. I absolutely applaud the writers for creating endings where your love interest breaks up with you and there's nothing you can do about it. It shows a sense of agency to characters, conveying a sense that their personal life does not end in their relationship to the PC and that your association does not mean they necessarily get a happy ending or you're more important than their personal values. However, there's things worth criticising in how it treats its characters. I think too much of the broader scope of the game's lore and grander narrative arcs are tied too much to exploration so Dys ends up being overly centralising to a lot of the narrative which undercuts other cast members. The kids introduced midway through with the exception of Vace are bland and don't offer much to the scope of its narrative, despite the mid game twist otherwise being great. For as much as the game also emphasises your ability to save others through time loops, a good many end up bleeding into the background and doing nothing after you've successfully done so with the sole exception of Tammy. This gets particularly weird given how some even have hints about their past which isn't played into as you would expect. The gameplay itself isn't deep but I think it's dynamic enough to not be wholly boring. There is a learning process to understanding how to optimize stat building and pathing to get the most out of any playthrough. Sometimes success is RNG dependent but there are means to affect the RNG in your favor to make results consistent. In terms of how it correlates to the narrative, I do think it succeeds in tying the stat building with relationship building, as often you're doing both at the same time. It's framed in such a way that the characters are building their skills the same way you are and the bonds you make with them are through a mutual life experience. In terms of how dialog options are laid out, your character is given mostly simplistic dialog and your relationship is defined by stat checks. The PC isn't given much characterization and is defined moreso by the sort of life you make them lead. I'm usually not a fan of this, but in this game I'm okay with the stat checks insofar as the game is designed in such a way that the goal is to raise your character's stats a certain way in a given playthrough so it's less a lame exploit and more gating towards how you interact with characters. Personally, I feel I'm more invested in the grander whole of the community than how people relate to the PC specifically, so I think it makes sense to design the PC so that you're able to blend into many different facets of the setting. Arguably you could say this can be a weakness given how much it pigeonholes a lot of character's actions based on your whim but I do think being able to influence events just makes its time loop premise compelling. Presentation wise it's simplistic but I do think it hits effectively in conveying how otherworldly the planet you exist on is. The colors are vibrant but distinct from anything found on Earth and I do like how differently seasons function in contrast to Earth. There's also a good sense of how different biomes are conveyed that all look uniquely alien but cohesive. The washed out colors on the portraits and scene art are beautiful to look at and there's a lot of great storytelling done just by the character design alone. There's so much I could delve into about this game regarding its overarching narratives on the Gardeners, the way it portrays character relationships, the fascinating ways the utopia is portrayed and how that ties to real world realities, or the specific themes such as transhumanism, spousal abuse, and political demagoguery, but Steam limits my words! At its core it's a thematically rich narrative about the relations we have as a community and how our environment communicates our understanding of the world, and it does this wonderfully.
Expand the review