‘Horses’: Why the Year’s Most Controversial Game Disappoints
▼ Summary
– The horror game *Horses* was banned from Steam and the Epic Games Store, and temporarily delisted from Humble, just before and after its release.
– There was significant public and community support for the developers, with many arguing the game’s content was relatively tame and the bans were undeserved.
– A critical review argues the game’s storytelling is clumsy and it handles its depictions of sexual assault in a blasé, ineffective manner.
– The author opposes censorship and believes distribution platforms’ power to ban games from small studios is a legitimate concern.
– The core critique is that *Horses* is a tedious, pretentious game whose shock value fades, making its runtime feel like a slog despite the surrounding controversy.
The recent controversy surrounding the horror game Horses has ignited a fierce debate about censorship and platform power in the gaming industry. After being banned from Steam and the Epic Games Store just before its December release, the title found itself at the center of a storm of public support. Many argued the bans were unjust, pointing out that the game’s content is relatively mild compared to other adult-oriented media. While the discussion about corporate control over creative expression is vital, it has largely overshadowed a more fundamental issue: the game itself is a profound disappointment, failing to deliver on its provocative premise with anything resembling meaningful artistry or compelling narrative.
Community backlash against the platform bans was swift and vocal. Numerous articles defended the developers at Santa Ragione, framing the situation as an unfair suppression of artistic vision by powerful gatekeepers. The consensus among supporters was that Horses did not warrant such severe treatment, especially given the wide availability of other games with mature themes. This wave of sympathy, however, has acted as a shield, deflecting critical examination of the actual experience the game provides. The conversation has become almost exclusively about its right to exist, rather than an assessment of its quality or execution.
Peeling back the layers of controversy reveals a work that is narratively clumsy and thematically shallow. The game attempts to tackle heavy subjects, including multiple depictions of sexual assault, but does so with a blasé, disengaged tone. This approach does not serve as a powerful commentary on sexual repression; instead, it feels like a lazy and exploitative shortcut to generate shock. The storytelling lacks nuance, relying on pseudo-intellectual ideas that mistake pretension for profundity. What begins as a deliberately provocative experience quickly becomes tedious, with the initial shock value wearing thin long before the three-hour runtime concludes.
It is crucial to separate the issue of censorship from the evaluation of the art itself. The power of major distribution platforms to unilaterally remove a small studio’s work is a legitimate concern for the entire creative community. Horses has every right to be published and judged on its own merits. Yet, granting that right does not exempt the game from criticism. The central failure of Horses is not that it is too audacious, but that its audacity is hollow. It feels like a poorly conceived student film, using controversial imagery as a substitute for genuine insight or emotional depth.
Ultimately, debates over whether the game “deserves” its scandal are subjective and somewhat pointless. They serve as a smokescreen for a product that is simply not very good. The bans generated sympathy and attention, but that attention has revealed a work that is more slog than sensation. The real lesson here may be that while fighting for creative freedom is essential, that fight should not automatically confer artistic legitimacy. A game can be wrongfully banned and still be a significant creative letdown.
(Source: Wired)
