This is a really fun game for a while with a lot of good laughs. I kind of think that’s all it is, though. The observations it makes about the gaming medium are obvious fundamentals anyone aware of intrinsic restrictions of game design will know about unless they have never applied conscious thought to it. A lot of what it pokes fun at isn’t even unique to gaming, but just anything with a restricted narrative (and that’s always what art is to an extent—it’s the limit of you and another person’s creativity.)

While The Stanley Parable is clever, funny, and entertaining, I wouldn’t say there’s anything genius about it. Genius would be offering innovative, alternative solutions to these observations, but The Stanley Parable is only making observations—observations games intentionally try to distract you from. Those are designers who understand the limitations of the medium and try to overcome them through their artistic illusions. In that sense, a competent game narrative is already more intelligent than The Stanley Parable.

Making a convincing world takes a lot of creativity and talent, and ought not to be depicted as trite without an actual counterargument to the approach. I’m not saying this game does that—I think it’s just having a lot of fun—but game journalists tripped over themselves to be the first to call this game genius, and its lack of revelations is obvious by how it seems to have had no perceptible impact on the industry. Even the concept of self-aware meta commentary on an art format isn’t anything new. I highly recommend the animated short, “Duck Amuck.”