While I was playing Gone Home, I definitely felt like by the end of the game, I was Katie uncovering all of the secrets of my family and discovering what had happened while I was away. I was hoping that at the end of the game, we would be able to find and speak with Sam, and when I realized that we wouldn't be able to, I felt disappointed. For me, that changed the meaning of the game from a mystery game to something even more thought-provoking. I wonder what the thought-process behind the creators' decision was and why they chose to end the game that way. What message were they trying to send to the players?

I found this quote interesting because it made me think more of what the "point" of a game really is and what defines a game. Does there need to be a winner to be a game? Is a game about skill or discovering a deeper message and theme? I feel like the definition of a game is loose- you don't have to discover a deeper message or heavily engage with a storyline in order for it to be a game (like Pacman, Tetris). However, I think that a game without a winner is still a game, even if it focuses more on the plot/storyline and less on skill/ a winner and loser.

It's interesting how a maze-based story game requires the reader/player to follow a specific order of events to progress through the story/game; if not, they must retrace their steps to see what details they may have missed.