That was amusing.

“What missions are there?”
Only one.

“What puzzles are there?”
None.

…That’s what happens when you take a set of questions written for a typical game, and apply them to Tale of Tales.

Hehe. I find it even hard to think of “missions” when the one “mission” in the game is simply to bring bread and wine to your grandmother and, as we know from the fairy tale, you’re not even supposed to do that in any goal-oriented manner. Let alone be rewarded for it.
Good thing they didn’t ask us if you were required to reload manually or if the enemies dropped any gold after they die… It’s funny how quickly we get used to conventions which are, at face value, completely absurd.
The Path makes a lot more sense, in a human kind of way. But in a game context, it seems strange…

It’s not even entirely a mission, because it’s the full game. And the point of the game is not to complete the mission.

When you put it like that - “required to reload manually or if the enemies dropped any gold after they die” - it does sound pretty absurd. I’ve never really challenged that sort of convention, even in my head (though I tend to lose interest in that sort of game pretty quickly anyway).

Games need to be more human. Much more so.

I’m not sure if games as such need to be more human. I actually tend to prefer games that are more abstract and less representational. But if they do get representational, I think they should also get more human/narative/meaningful. Otherwise, indeed, you get absurdity.

So perhaps we don’t need games to be more human. Perhaps we just need more human games.

I mean more human as in…more sensitive. More emotional. More REAL, and less like a nightmare.