Something, something, projecting one's own inadequacies on others. Something, misinterpreting a subject to add greater depth to it than is actually there ("the wallpaper was blue - well that of course means the writer was experiencing some existential angst at the time related to his mother." ...no, it was just blue).
Interesting game overall, at least from a meta stand point. Partly through it being an argument against people looking for deeper meanings where there aren't any, and going so far as to enforce ones which aren't there to begin with (the lamppost). Also as a psychological study of the narrator and his own state of affairs. I quite liked that it starts out as an a typical (of sorts) analysis of the subject matter, but as it progress the narrator's bias and twisting of the facts to suite their own perception of the situation (and their attempts to justify that). It says a lot about critical analysis in general, not just in video games. ...It happens in news reporting all the time.
The game itself could have been designed better, as particularly I can see it having players drop off a bit if they aren't invested in the story. Too much wandering around without prompts with the game expecting you to know what to do. Which is fine, as things are typically self explanatory, just that that may put people off. ...Though I guess people could make the argument that that's a moot subject given the style of the game.
Overall an thoughtful piece. It may not be what people were expecting after the Stanley Parable, but I can see there being a few articles coming out on it at some point. Its perhaps not unique in its subject, but rather just in the media which was chosen to put it across. It was a fun jaunt, though that may be entirely down to my own tastes (I do have a thing for meta fiction...).
