Rob v James: To The Moon v Chivalry

With all the indies on offer this weekend at GMG, Rob and I decided to sit down and have a discussion over a few of the notable titles in the sale. Just in case there's anyone out there who is a long-way off their payday, or only needs a couple of games to tide them over!

Today we're talking about Chivalry and To The Moon!

James: To The Moon is a nice game game and all, I'll admit right now it made me cry, but if you've gotta base a purchase on how many hours you'll get out of it Chivalry is a clear winner. There's only a very loose story ("civil war, get a sword, go, go, go!"), but the sheer gameplay is addictive enough to keep you on it for hours.

Rob: That's a cheap shot. Yeah, To the Moon is short, it's short like the fuse of a bomb filled with emotion and tears and little paper birds. Chivarly may be an awesome multiplayer game, but the height of the emotional experience is shouting FOR AGATHAAAAAAAA or whatever over and over again on servers. You can get Chivalry another day, To the Moon is a unique gaming 'experience', and I don't use the term experience lightly.

James: I'd consider Chivalry's strengths more in being a visceral experience than an emotional one, though the voice macros are definitely emotive in that game. I'd say similarly to Frozen Synapse there's a strong focus on the skill of the player (I wonder if there's a theme in the games I tend to play...), because as you say it's all about the multiplayer aspect. Knowing when to parry, counter, feint or strike, and being able to accurately aim and time all of that into a switch dispatch of your opponent really test you as a player, and the feeling when you're victorious, while not emotional, is certainly exhilarating.

Rob: Yeah but you know what the worst thing about games is? Other people. And online, they are everywhere, getting up in your grill. I get that there's sometimes you wanna go and fight people, and I won't lie, To the Moon isn't exactly a "game", there's virtually no gameplay beyond walking around and doing a few puzzles, but my god, is it well written. It's exhilirating in a far deeper way, and a far rarer way, too. Few games come close to the writing, characterisation and music that To the Moon does, I wouldn't trade that for a halbred and a funny hat.

James: Don't knock the halberd, Vanguards will knock your flat on your butt.  It's probably not worth arguing over whether multiplayer enhances a game or not (yet...) since that could go on for a while.  In this instance it will come down to a person's general preferences. Do you wanna be taken on a roller coaster of emotion and feel that the characters are genuinely alive? To The Moon is what they'll want. Do you wanna see some sweet decapitations and yell battle cries as you charge towards the enemy castle? Chivalry is the only option!  That's one thing I'd wanna say actually, even though they're totally different games, the sound in both is incredible.

Rob: You're right, they are both pretty different and they both do awesome stuff. But you should still get To the Moon if you could only get one, because it's like nothing else out there. Then you should come back, perhaps tomorrow, and get Chivalry too, after completing To the Moon and sitting in a puddle of your own tears. I'd also like to say to those you worried about the graphics or the fact it's been made in RPG Maker to CHILL OUT and grab it anyway, the format totally works, even if you don't normally like pixel art style.

James: Well, if longevity of a game is a factor it's gotta be Chivalry. Where To The Moon is single-player you can rest safe in the knowledge that story will always be there, ready and waiting for you. With a game where the multiplayer is at it's core, you want to grab it while it's hot. That covers it really, unless I need to pick up my halberd and start swinging.

Who will win the discussion? We're judging it based on what game sells more on a daily basis, and we'll update this page with a suitable fatality picture!

So what will it be? To The Moon or Chivalry?