"understanding depression (esp. for ones who never experienced it)"
Even the description is elitist and pretentious. Everyone has experienced depression. It's an extremely common mental disorder. DQ is nothing more than a lackluster text-based visual novel (if you can call it that) cashing in on an easily exploitable group.
Description may be not ideal - so feel free to propose a different one (via PR).
> Everyone has experienced depression.
Not everyone. And people who have never had it go into annoying and counterproductive 'get over it' as they really think that it is about typical sadness, laziness or (very temporary) low mood. Or that people suffering are just too dumb to realize that some activities may help them.
And I found this game useful in explaining depression to such people. Especially as:
- very often one is well aware of beneficial steps, yet having no energy/will/hope to do them (captured wonderfully in this game!),
- that even positive things (committed relationship, social gathering etc) are at best small steps, they aren't enough just to "cheer someone up".
For a better resource (but not a game), I send: http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2013/05/depression-par....
EDIT: That said, I don't mean that Depression Game is a good game for everyone.
EDIT2: IT is here are its mechanics is mechanics of depression (psychology).
So far it looks like any other visual novel and I can't find any mention of scientific research anywhere. I really don't understand what's scientific about any of that. It would be like saying that the movie "Memento" is scientific because it features anterograde amnesia.
"Memento" is not an interactive experience. (And the condition is not common.)
If there were a game with mechanics on living with OCD, it would fit.
What I have in my mind, is about games with its core mechanics being to something related to (yes, it can be psychology; or international relationships).
Some game that would be "I played X for it's own sake, yet I've learnt how Y works.".
And clearly, it's not a game of "games I like the most" or "the most advanced games" or anything. (For both of these aspects DF >> DQ.)
In any case, seeing how you think: Kerbal Space Program is clearly one of the most popular games in this category, but nowhere near specific as, say, Velocity Raptor. (Yet, order is kind of incidental.)
It may or may not be elitist and pretentious (what kind of art isn't?), but that has no influence on whether it is science based or not.
> Everyone has experienced depression.
Well, this is simply not true.
What I said is that your argumentation is absolutely incorrect and wrong in this context.
Basically you're not taking part in the point of the original discussion?
It's not the words that were incorrect. The logic behind them is flawed. The list is supposed to convey games with element of science in them. The entries which are not based on science should be removed from the list. Therefore correct argumentation for removing DQ from the list should explain why the game has nothing to do with actual science.
In my opinion, looking at metacritic user reviews now is not a good metric in this case: Depression Quest is one of the games that was a big part of the whole GamerGate debacle (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy). Tensions ran high, people made unfortunate comments and personal attacks, and things quickly ran out of control; a lot of gamers simply set out to punish some games and authors with negative reviews. Unfortunately this means many reviews are suspect and not entirely about whether the game is scientific or not, or about the game itself or its quality for that matter.
As I'm sure you're aware of.
In fact, getting too hung up about this particular entry in the list is (to me) suspect.
It's not hard to find overwhelming posts pointing these facts out: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/2dw9hh/why_is...
Any the cherry on top is your last line. "Suspect" Once again, either people are forced to cave in, or otherwise be "suspect" or "problematic" or "misogynist" or just the bad guy.
Am I not allowed to point out the simple fact that DQ has no scientific educational value and as such does not belong on that list? If so, why am I not allowed to state this simple truth? Because it's inconvenient?
You have, and the person who put DQ in the list disagreed. Why does it matter whether you personally like the game? You said your thing, the other person disagreed. Unless you're emotionally invested in DQ in particular, for unrelated reasons, I'd say the case is closed.