Pointless censorship
If it isn’t illegal they should leave it alone
Content warnings and tags exist for a reason
Do digital store fronts play-through all the games, expansions, and DLC they list on their stores? This doesn’t seem practical.
Horses, a first-person psychological horror adventure about “the burden of familial trauma and puritan values, the dynamics of totalitarian power, and the ethics of personal responsibility” set on a ranch where nude human beings in horse masks are treated as livestock.
Is this just a game for edgelords or is there something compelling under that mess of a description?
Edit: We don’t have to pretend every game is art - there’s crap out there. I’m asking if anybody thinks this thing has redeeming qualities based on actual information about the game, not hypotheticals.
So you’re saying this game is a work of art that will endure the ages? Worthy of hundreds of years of praise?
Whether a piece of art is a monumental accomplishment or a fleeting novelty should have no bearing on the content it is allowed to display. Making that distinction is indulging in censorship.
Unless you’re saying that Michelangelo gets a pass, but Horses doesn’t? How do you know whether a piece of art is worth it? Where do you draw the line?
Stephen King’s IT has the famous scene where children have an orgy in the sewers. Is he allowed to write it? What’s the difference between IT and Horses, apart from the (subjective) quality of the works themselves?Where do you draw the line?
I’m asking if its good or if its edgelord shovelware.
Have you played it?
I think it’s a very interesting experience, although it may not be apt for people who play for the gameplay exclusively. It’s eerie and unsettling in a way that’s difficult to replicate in more traditional/mainstream media, which I think is a good thing in a horror game. If you’re tired of random ghosts, zombies or similar and want a more unique experience, Horses provides that.
Whether you’ll like it, heavily depends on whether you are willing to forgive its shortcomings in the gameplay department in favour of the unique story and social commentary it aims to provide. I’ve played multiple games in the past where I liked the story and didn’t care much for the gameplay, but I also have friends who are unwilling to play a bad game with a good story, so, you know, YMMV.
If you’re asking whether “that mess of a description” exists solely for you to masturbate on or to provide shock value, then I disagree. While the game does feature heavy themes and abhorrent imagery, they exist to convey the narrative. The following is from a Reddit comment (user: yougotiton) that sums it up very nicely:
[…] the puritan can never be free of sexuality, but is vindictive towards the reality of sexuality. It’s easier for them to express their own sexuality through abuse and violence than it is to confront it or interrogate it.
It’s also a horror game, so, you know, abhorrent things are to be expected (and are appreciated when done right).
Thank you for the thorough answer, this is what I was looking for.
Happy to oblige.
To be frank, and I’m sorry if this may sound a bit blunt, you might get more thoughtful replies if your question focused less on dismissing the game up front. The front-loaded tone of your original question is what drew so many downvotes and pushed people away who may have been willing to answer your questions thoughtfully. I also completely missed your point and talked about censorship instead of the game itself because of that.
It’s alright if you don’t like the game or its content, and honestly, I don’t think the game’s for me either; but I wouldn’t be so quick as to judge it as edgelord shovelware before even trying to assess what kind of game it is, especially as the article, which you quoted, made it quite clear that the game had social commentary going on and wasn’t just porn slop.
Ah yes, yes. The game from “one of the best indie game developers” that, as of 2025.12.04 (2 days since release), has <4 Metacritic user reviews (no score) and stands at 77 score with only 7 reviews by game critics. Devs get tons of free clout by being removed, but somehow their game is still unpopular. Wonder why.
Are you seriously suggesting they deliberately got their game banned from Steam?
No developer is out there voluntarily withdrawing from the biggest games market just for the sake of ‘clout’.
It’s not a conspiracy, Valve just made a decision and other storefronts reacted.
They got told “no, and never” by Steam 3 years ago. It’s absolutely a marketing move to bring it up now. The Epic and Humble removals were rug pulls, though.
Does it being a marketing move mean that it’s not worth criticizing Steam for having a one-strike-you’re-out system? I don’t think it does. If your game has (something valve considers reject-worthy) and you get rejected, you should probably be allowed to submit it again after removing the thing valve rejected you for.
In this crazy world where it could actually happen, I don’t think they did it with intent. Most likely the haven’t had this in their plans, but they did plan on having a minor in the game to ride a horse. They thought that it would be a great idea to capitalize on Steam ban - that is undeniable. And I can’t blame them. That is indeed a perfect advertisement campaign - loud and, most importantly, free.
It is just hilarious to me that with all this clout and attention, their game is getting barely any buzz post-release. And also that the most posted article about Steam ban is mentioning them as one of the best idie devs out there when they are like mid at best.
No one shoots themselves in the foot hoping to claim health insurance. Use your brain.
please share your theory. also, why popularity matters.
Publicity stunt.
They got tons of publicity by being banned from steam. They harnessed it as much as possible which spawned the infamous “one of the best indie game developers” title in some news articles. Being banned from two major game stores brings a lot of eyes on their game. And even with a bright spotlight lightning up their game - still barely anyone is talking about it. My theory is - game is below average at best and can be barely called an art piece in gaming industry. (based on what I know about the game and on one youtube playthrough)
Popularity matters cause it is a good metric to measure sales. If game is good and sells well - people will talk. People are barely talking about this game. Sales are probably very low. But also, what would sales be if it wouldn’t be banned of steam? I bet they would barely exist.
(1) The devs trying to make the best out of a bad situation and marketing their game in a difficult situation is, like, not their fault? If you have a product, you want to sell it. Especially if you are an indie dev who desperately needs as much marketing as possible, and ESPECIALLY if you get banned from the largest videogame storefront on the planet because of Valve’s shitty review policies. Calling this “publicity stunt” is very narrow-minded.
(2) Some random news article calling them “one of the best indie game developers” is, again, not their fault. First of all, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and secondly, the devs are not out there brainwashing people to like their game. If someone liked their game enough to consider them a GOTY contender, good for them. My 2018 GOTY was CrossCode despite other big titles releasing that same year (MH World, RDR2, Spiderman, Celeste, God of War just to name a few), is it the dev’s fault?
(3) You calling it “barely an art piece” means shit all. It’s not up to you (or anyone) to decide what’s art and what’s not. This is blatant censorship, but I guess that’s alright as long as it’s not something you like?
(4) The problem is not that they would’ve sold fewer copies had they be available on Steam; the problem is that they weren’t allowed a chance to prove themselves to begin with, because of the shitty review policies by Valve who adamantly refuses to review any game twice (despite them having more than enough money to do so) when they find something they deem “unacceptable”, according to their nebulous metrics. Somehow Sex with Hitler is allowed to be sold on their platform, and so are many Japanese hentai games featuring questionably-legal child-like characters, but this one isn’t? Why is that?
It would be an extremely risky strategy. The studio’s whole portfolio are offbeat shortforms (indeed one of the higher profile indie devs) and I don’t think getting banned from Steam and losing sales there was something they anticipated. Using this for publicity is plan B for damage control, never has been plan A.
The steam ban was ages ago, the news was recent. They decided to go loud about the steam ban as they released, its clearly pr. I dont think they got banned intentionally but the difference is a little academic when you cry this loudly about it.
its clearly pr
Yes, as I said, plan B. Do you expect the studio to say “ok fuck it, let’s close up” when they projected a huge loss of sales after Steam denied their release?
G*mers admit Lord Gaben made a mistake challenge IMPOSSIBLE DIFFICULTY NOT CLICKBAIT!!! GONE SEXUAL!! 😱😱
