The Talos Principle

Good Game for logic fanatics, but not philosophically interested (as the Description suggests)! First of All: I would recommend this Game, but still decided not to do it at this Time, because in my Opinion it is not worth its current Price (Compared to other Full-price titles). For 10 to 15,-EUR, however, I would find it highly recommended if you like to solve logic puzzles (both in Terms of the Game world and in terms of the history to be developed and the Purpose of the Whole). But above all I would like to Warn the Players who perhaps-like myself-expect a philosophical Examination of interesting questions of humanity and a credible Or at least comprehensibly explained backstory, as the Developers Do not want to suggest yes with their game description or with their teaser demo (called Public Test). However, this is found-benevolently-extremely rudimentary in the actual Game, since virtually exclusively materialistic Approaches are taken or touted and even the back story has so many Logic Gaps that it-even in the End; After really solving all the Puzzles, collecting all the Stars and seeing all 3 Ends-no more represented than another, not really thought out, believable or even expected Future Version. This is all the more surprising because the entire game and puzzle principle is built almost entirely on Logic, extolling the Capabilities of the human Brain as the most outstanding Trait. But it is precisely with such a thing that it is easy to see that the core message of history, namely that the successful Completion Of a Project (I do not want to reveal more precisely here, so as not to spoil too much) the Examination of philosophical, Ethical and even religious Questions requires – no Correspondence in the actual Story of the Game and thus in turn – find in the said project, but all Ends are made possible (playfully) by solving all logic puzzles. – In Other words, In order to reach the End of the Game – and thus also to the Dissolution of its narrative Secrets-you can also simply omit all pseudo-philosophical Texts and "Conversations" with the Terminals and solve only the Puzzles. Pseudo-philosophically, I call it the Whole thing, because, starting with The Selection of Philosophical Topics – which are to be "discussed" on the basis of text fragments and predetermined Question-and-answer games-the predetermined – often far too little differentiated – Answer options up to the (also pseudo-) religious Intimations and their Equivalents in the Playing Field, all extremely fragmented and exemplary is tackled. In Addition, the desired "Confrontation" in The philosophical sphere remains purely limited to scientific and materialistic Ways of thinking, and in Relation to Religion the Cliché Of a Personalised conception of God and Faith in Heaven and Hell – including golden Sky gates above the Clouds (almost, as is celebrated at Disney!). Only dealing with artificial Intelligences – or better: Their appreciation – is dealt with in a reasonably extensive way, but this Topic also loses any – probably hoped for – claim by the logic error described above in its playful Implementation. In my Opinion, the whole Thing has nothing to do with Wisdom, in the Actually literal sense of philosophy. Since a great Deal has already been said by others (or can be read in countless reviews etc.) about the Other game mechanics and the puzzle or world design, it is only worth mentioning here that I am aware of all the positive Statements on this Point. Want to join others; But with one Exception: The Variety – in the optical sense As well as in Terms of Puzzle design and Diversity of Objects – is, in my Opinion, much too short in the Design Concept, culminating in the Boring and always equally running Mini-games With The so-called "Seals." Conclusion: Summarizing, I would say that this is a very interesting and Almost perfectly successful Game In Terms of scope, visual design and puzzle design for People who have an intellectually demanding, but not with too much narrative Depth Seek Entertainment in the Realm of Logic and materialistic Thinking. But anyone else who can hope for more of it and understand my criticism above should think carefully about whether such a superficial pseudo-philosophical Game concept is worth this Prize-and the Time invested in it.