PostMod Softworks has recently relesaed the first 15 minutes of gameplay for their upcoming narrative exploration title, The Old City. If you missed our exclusive interview with the developers last week, you can read it right here. Once you’ve read that, checkout the gameplay video below and let us know what you think in the comments. Be sure to follow us on Facebook and Twitter to stay up to date with all the latest on The Old City and other upcoming single player titles.

Nick Calandra
OnlySP founder and former site owner.

Only Speaking Professionally | Nexus-Gen

Previous article

Wolfenstein: The New Order Pre-order Comes with Doom 4 Beta & 25% Discount

Next article


  1. The atmosphere is unrelenting, but I can’t help but feel as if they didn’t really show much at all with this trailer. If the game plays like this (all atmosphere, no action of any kind), then I think it is likely to be a very boring game…

    1. Well, it depends on what one defines as a game and what one finds boring. This is an interactive story like ‘Dear Esther’, perhaps.

      And some people do love atmosphere and they love physically moving through a story, even if it is still a story. Not everyone wants “things happening”, all the time. And just because things don’t happen in the form of actions/events does not mean there is no progress. It is just a progress of another kind. Of a story being unfolded.

      A game like this can have a much bigger grip on someone’s emotions than all the action and interactivity in the world, if done well.

      1. Personally, as a game designer and an avid gamer myself, I am of the belief that all great games have to have some form of action. Just walking through a story/great atmospheric environments is cool, but it is just that: cool. Games of that kind are not really that fun, persay, even if they are immersive and, as you said, can control my emotions more. Personally though, I strongly believe that games that have a great story/immersive atmosphere AND have gameplay too (these atmospheric walking games like The Old City essentially have no real gameplay, because all you do is walk through environments) are the games that have the biggest impact. But hey, what do I know, I only design games for a living.

        1. Designing games does not give you the ability to decide what moves or does not move other people, what is or is not boring for everyone, or what fun is. Fun has a different definition for everyone. A game with only basic walk/go up ladder interaction might not move you personally, but saying it is the wrong way to make games or saying it is boring when it does move others is very limiting an approach.

          Games, or if the term is what you mind, interactive stories like ‘Dear Esther’ or ‘Gone Home’ have not received acclaim and gamer praise for no reason. They might not be triple-A financial hits or traditional games, if interaction is what defines a game for you, but there are clearly a lot of people who do not find them boring or bad works. As a game designer, acknowledging that people find different things, with different levels of interaction fun would be a given and a basic mindset in designing good games, I would think.

          1. Well in my opinion, an interactive story is not a game, since games innately imply gameplay and interactive stories don’t have gameplay, just storytelling. Secondly, my last comment was filled with lots of qualifiers that said those were my personal opinions and not me stating facts. Two of those sentences didn’t lead with a qualifier, but they were implied.

            And just to be clear, the fact that I design games for a living does make me more knowledgeable about what makes a game fun. I do like interactive stories, but I don’t consider them to be games since they have no real gameplay (usually).

          2. Then it’s a matter of definition, which is fair. Maybe they are not good games, but they are successful in being entertaining as what they are, that was my point.

          3. I’ll bite.

            “Fun” is not only incredibly subjective, but so fluid that it is an immoral category. You are no more knowledgeable in what makes a game “fun” than a painter is knowledgeable in what color is the prettiest. You’re ascribing an immoral category (that is, a category that limits objects through a lack of definition) to an already subjective experience using an epistemic vehicle that should never have entered the fray (that is, knowledge). But, given the assumption that a profession somehow translates to adequacy, I suppose it would be appropriate that we also assert that, in fact, we too are designers! In fact, we are designers by nature of having designed a game!

            “Just storytelling.” The reductionist stance is very detrimental to the diversity of experience that mediums desperately need to stay alive. Games for everyone by everyone should never enter your brain as a viable or even desirable state. As Orion pointed out, people approach mediums with a diversity of interests, and the more diversity games can match, the more life is breathed into the medium. Perhaps the experience of “fun” is not something that our players are looking for. Perhaps they are looking for an entirely different experience, just as people who watch different movies in different genres or read poems, books, comics, or any other form of media don’t all expect to feel happy at the end of their time spent with it. To suggest that games all must be fun is to suggest that games shouldn’t, on some level, partake in the ever evolving dance of humanity. Not exactly the greatest design philosophy, is it.

            “Game” has a far broader definition than you might imagine, at least connotatively. Of course, denotatively, the definition is still the rather conservative one. But, to suggest a dogged adherence to this denotative definition of “game” as a rubric by which work is justified is absolutely ridiculous, and, frankly, anti-human. It’s mechanistic. Consider what I previously mentioned regarding diversity of experience. What makes us human is that we are, in fact, diverse. We are interested in different things, and we are interested in different ways of sharing those things. Games are just one way of sharing things we are interested in, and to suggest that our game is not a game because it does not adhere to the denotative dictionary form of the word not only undermines 75% or so of the current titles called “game,” but it also leads to a reduction of diversity of experience, which is the exact thing that allows us to express our humanity. This language of “true games” or “fun” asserts that games aren’t just a medium (that is, they aren’t just an interesting way of presenting a diversity of experiences) but they are, in fact, a vessel by which we are only allowed to communicate one experience. And, what a limited experience it is.

  2. This looks really good..I hope I enjoy it.

Comments are closed.

You may also like