but man I do not get the raving reception it got.

My takeaway from Inside's reception is that it's what I'd view as video games' Birdman. The game oozes style and refinement to nearly Borges levels of attention to detail, and that's really great. But if the tonal nature of what's being presented doesn't work for someone (and that sort of resonance is important to that player), then they are not going to get a lot out of it. Which is pretty much how I felt watching Birdman: the style was cool, the acting was great, but it had visible seams in its editing and the story ended up being an exercise in presenting obfuscation as depth and meaning.

And as with Birdman, all I could think after finishing Inside was "Oh. That's it, huh?" To me, the game felt so narratively vapid by the end, that I couldn't help but feel as if my $20 could have been put to better use. For instance, what was the deal with

A lot of people may like one or both of these things a lot (and that's great! Like what you like!), but I just cannot get past what I saw as "shallow writing" in either one.