User Score

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 158 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 61 out of 158
  2. Negative: 72 out of 158

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 6, 2012
    I find it hard to actually call this a game. It has point and click elements, but none of them are of any consequence or make any difference upon the outcome. Its essentially an art-house movie made of box-like characters. Its cute and has some sophistication, but it lasts 5 minutes and while you get the feeling of playing a game you are really just passing through a scene. I was at "the end" and restarted a few times, assuming I did something wrong. Its entertaining but should be free in my opinion. Expand
  2. Nov 14, 2012
    I'm a proud supporter of indie games. I had some spare money lying around in my Steam wallet and I decided I'd take a gamble and get a couple games. I was not expecting to be "blown-away" by this game, but i was expecting it to be unique, interesting and fun. Most of all I was expecting to be able to enjoyably play it for at least a couple hours worth of time. How wrong and disappointed I was. The story lasts approximately 20 minutes and there is no replayability to it. What makes the medium of art and story telling that is known as "video games" is their ability to let the user interact with the game. The level of interaction introduced in this game is dreadful; Google Earth is more interactive and it's free. I not only spent more time at the beginning just tweaking the graphics, but in the end I also enjoyed setting up my graphics more than the actual game. If you are looking for a good indie game of some sort, DO NOT BUY THIS GAME! Go buy something like Machinarium or LIMBO. Collapse
  3. Nov 30, 2012
    Honestly. This "game" is nothing more than a cheap way for the producer to get money. It could've easily been made into a short cartoon and posted on youtube. In fact that would've been better. At least then I wouldn't have felt so cheated afterwords. The only people who seem to like this scam are the kind of people who stare at modern art and pretend like they understand what the artist was trying convey. Just watch a play through on youtube and save yourself the time and the money.. Expand
  4. Jan 20, 2013
    As an artist I can understand people using 'games' as a form of artistic expression and what not but this was pushing it. In short, it is a 5 minute walk through scene. I would not even call it a game and to me it felt like they created an intro with end credits but forgot to add in the middle part. I've played 'artistic' games like Dear Esther and The Path both of which played like the creators put a lot of thought and effort into an over all nice experience that made you really think about what was going on while leaving it's impression on you. However with this....'game' i walked up to the 'The end' block and seriously thought they were joking. The only impression I got left with here was complete disappointment.

    the short scene it's self is rather nice but had it been really drawn out more over maybe a good hour or two, i would have been able to appreciate it more. There were games made in the 48 hour game festival more captivating and content full then this. I don't honestly believe this took more then a week to make.

    Oh and the whole 'it's indie and cheap' thing does not excuse this. Just because it's an indie game doesn't mean they can make any crap they want and it's 'ok because it's indie.' I'm sorry but i am just too disappointed to be susceptible to this incredibly short story...
  5. Sep 12, 2012
    I'm a bit shocked by the high scores that critics gave this.. experiment. I will give the 'game' credit that its style is mildly charming and the story it was telling could have 'become' interesting. That is the end of my praise. It is so incredibly short that I can't believe they opted to charge money for it. I felt like someone had come in and stolen 5 dollars out of my pocket when the credits rolled. Also, for the very little time you're playing you have no impact on the story. It's a straight hallway where you can't even so much as walk 10 feet away from the predetermined paths.

    I honestly question whether the 'experimental' part of this was the gameplay or seeing how little work they could put into a game and still get away with charging money for it.
  6. Dec 28, 2012
    This is a neat tech demo, as it would be a very good way to tell a story... but the story given is not complete. There's only half a story (and not a good one at then), then it ends after literally 15 minutes.

    I would recommend this if it were free (not as good as Stanley Parable, but still cool), but my god do not pay money for this.
  7. Dec 28, 2012
    Don't bother me with your "art game". Please, I love original games like journey, to the moon, Dear Esther etc. But this is not art. This is intellectual masturbation. 10 min of nothing, 5$ less for charity.
  8. Dec 27, 2012
    This game is beyond awful. I can't believe I paid money for this. No amount of "art game" talk can cover up the fact that this isn't in any way interesting to "play" or interact with. It also crashes often.
  9. Oct 6, 2012
    One of the few times where the artsy game critics and people's voice differ greatly.
    I wouldn't recommend this game to a single friend. There's so much better out there. Not impressed at all.
  10. Dec 25, 2012
    This game is a crazy jumble of nothing. Its construction is sh!tty, its plot is non-existent and its characters are flat. Nothing about the content of the game moves you to play on or to feel interested in any way. You are thrown into a scene and world that has no background other than a quick run-down of your companions skills through bold text and vague jump-cut scenes which depict moments before and after a heist. Nothing is explained to you, which may have been alright had they not chosen to skip around chronologically while also leaving out key points of the plot (i.e. the game is about a heist, but you never even see that occur or participate in it). But since they did, the viewer gets jerked around and has to make sense of mundane or confusing moments that have no dialogue or text for explication. So now you're playing through a second time, wondering if there's any point at all, but all you're finding is a completely non-interactive world with a mildly interesting art style. in fact, the mildly interesting art style is the only thing that earns this title a single point. The critics write reviews saying it's good that this game doesn't hold your hand or act like a normal game- well it's not. Why don't other games base themselves entirely on jump-cuts? Because they're not avant garde enough? No. They don't do that because making a game that way wouldn't make any sense and it would rob the game of it's story and details. That is exactly what happens with TFOL. Also, what does Thirty Flights of Loving mean? Is it referencing the fact that they own a plane? That the characters are in love? Who knows! It's just a non-sense title to go right along with a non-sense game. You go into TFOL wondering what kind of experience you will get because the trailer is well constructed and the art style looks interesting, but you leave confused and annoyed because the end comes too quickly and you're still wondering what the point was. This game is basically bad sex. The only reason I see this getting a good review is that there are a handful of people who thought it was good and everyone else is too embarrassed to look stupid disagreeing with those people because they're considered "professional" opinions. This feels like the era of shock art where "artists" upset their viewers and tell them that what they've seen and experienced is both good and art. Spoiler alert: It isn't. Save yourself a few dollars and go do something enjoyable. Or if you really want, you could also pay someone to slap you in the face- that is the equivalent of what you'll be doing in buying this game anyway, only you'll actually save some time just paying for the slap. Expand
  11. Jan 6, 2013
    What the hell was that ? It's not a game at all and i don't understand why peoples loves this and how it manages to makes money. I think this is the worst thing i played ever. Save yourself some money and go see a walkthrough on youtube, it's as interactive as the full game.
  12. Dec 27, 2012
    Over rated. I think that best describes my experience with 30 flights of loving. It seems that you can throw anything radical at critics these days and they will have a proverbial orgy over it so they don't look unintelligent and I think the fear of looking stupid has contributed to this games undeservedly high meta critic score. if you're looking for a half hour experience you may have to repeat in order to fully understand, sure but don't expect any closure, there is a basic story that you will have to think about and look around for but nothing amazing honestly. Expand
  13. Nov 6, 2012
    This is NOT a game, and I cannot believe the high Metascore which this has attracted. The MUCH lower user scores are very telling.
    This is a self-indulgent w**k-fest, full of "in jokes" which aren't funny - or even jokes - and nobody should even care about as this piece of software is generally very poorly-constructed and CRASHES FREQUENTLY!
    There's just no excuse... Using an engine
    which is over a DECADE old, I gained precisely no enjoyment from this dross and want my money back.
    Avoid, avoid, avoid.
  14. Jan 16, 2013
    This game is a total fraud and I'd like slap some sense into the Metacritics for suckering me into purchasing this game. It's not even a game. In a game, you have some control over something somewhere somehow. This is a crappy flash movie where you press "W" instead of "Play". The story is totally cliche and boring. You keep waiting for the twist, the punchline, the epiphany, the revelation, and then BAM, "The End". What?!? 10 minutes does not a game make. Thirty Flights of Loving is a stain on the reputation of indie games. It should be called Ninety Megabytes of Nothing. Expand
  15. Jan 12, 2013
    The first one "Gravity Bone" was much much better. The commentary was nice but my second play through crashed near the end. I do not think I will attempt to play it again.
  16. Jan 20, 2013
    Only 15 minutes long. It's just a story, not a game. Avoid or you will be sorry. Most expensive game per minute I've ever bought. I want my GD money back, you will too.
  17. Jan 21, 2013
    I am at a loss describing why this isn't free. There is nothing about this that evokes game and even as a story it's not interesting... Check the user ratings compared to critics. This is as pretentious as it gets
  18. Sep 25, 2012
    Ok, the game is... hmmm... truly "special", here's what I want to say to its creators: 1) What the f**k was that?
    2) Do you consider this art or what?
    3) Oh, you even charge money for that?
    4) Shame on you, "game" creators!
  19. Feb 21, 2013
    This experimental title tells a short story in a unique way, similar to that of Dear Esther and The Path. Unlike the other games I mentioned, Thirty Flights of Loving is annoying to play, triggers no emotion and features no attempt to immerse the player. It is true that this game is as long as it should be, but only in the fact of telling a story. The game has plenty of pointless "gameplay" elements, annoying sound effects and confusing mechanics. The title goes for 10 minutes, for a 5 dollar "game" it is a pretty damn big rip off. 10 minutes of confusion, 0 gameplay, linear progression, pointless features and no player impact of the story begs the question of why the player was given the controls in the first place. The new scene of art inside gaming is an interesting and for the most part a good thing, but Thirty Flights of Loving takes this scene to beyond ridiculous. The whole title is basically a waste, the story told in the "game" can be told a hundred times better on paper, or in a cartoon. The whole experience of this game can be summed up in confusion, and when the end credits smack you in the face after 10 minutes, you can't help feel like you have been hypnotized, then mugged for your lunch money without realizing. Expand
  20. Apr 6, 2013
    There is such little game-play besides moving and occasionally pressing E. I've played point and clicks games at least most try to put in puzzles. This is a game that was better served being a animation on YouTube. Torrent, watch a YouTube video, or play it if a friend has it don't waste money on this.
  21. Jan 24, 2013
    Eh....Ok. You basically walk through an artsy story that doesn't make much sense and which leaves a lot up to interpretation. The story was not interesting or compelling to me. It also takes less than 20 minutes to complete this "game." I feel compelled to be especially harsh here, because critics have given so much praise to Thirty Flights of Loving, when I couldn't really recommend that anyone should buy this. So, you have been warned. Expand
  22. Mar 16, 2013
    This is not a game. If you're looking for anything approaching gameplay, go somewhere else. Anywhere else. Go watch someone play it on YouTube. It'll be the same experience, but you'll still have your money.
  23. Mar 10, 2013
    This should be a free download. DON'T buy it. Those are 5$ totally thrown away.
    Critics should actually help gamers to choose which game to buy and this shouldn't have gone far than a "20" average vote.
  24. Mar 22, 2013
    Normally you should beware reviews of 0 and 10, because the reviewer has an agenda or is simply being childish in his extremity. This is the first game in 25 years of gaming that I truly thought deserved a 0, and it's because it isn't a game.

    What you will find in most of the high reviews is a lot of vague, flowery language used to champion the storytelling and quality of plot. I
    thought it was like 21 grams: a boring, predictable story that would have been so obvious and boring if told sequentially that they had no choice but to try and faux-art it up. So I would caution you as a reader to always look for the actual points made and examine them for content, rather than form.

    Here's an example. "It's a portal to one's own imagination, the only lock on which is the limit he would impose on his own dreams--let go of all expectations to find it so much more than it first seemed." I just described a door hot glued to a solid brick wall. Not only will if take effort to remove the door, but when you do, you're still faced with a brick wall, whose function is antithetical to that of a door.

    When describing a game, your first concern should be gameplay. If it isn't, you're not a gamer. You can care about other things, like plot/character, quality of voice-acting, graphics, price, etc, but gameplay is the fundamental reason why an idea becomes a game and not a movie.

    A blogger put it best (and I paraphrase) that it seemed like an attempt by someone who is confused by art and assumes that others are likewise confused, to reproduce that which confuses him. It's just a heist story with characters that don't even achieve one-dimensionality. The mountebanks that tell you otherwise are responding to their ill-informed gut instincts that the game is art, and as people are given to do, they oversell it as brilliant and groundbreaking in an attempt to somehow internalize those misperceived traits. These same mental gymnastics allow some to continue support of "Indoctrination Theory" in 2013.

    It's a half-story told though asynchronous set pieces separated by jump cuts. It has a kind of Diabolik era look to it, but each set piece is simply walked (or run) through with the occasional static activation of an object. In the opening scene you can grab bottles of liquor, a gun and some ammo, but you will never use them.

    As I approached what ultimately was the end, I thought it was a fun way to introduce elements of the back story before launching the actual gameplay. And then it was over, 10 minutes of absolutely nothing.

    I considered calling Steam and requesting them to remove it from my account, but its presence serves as an albatross around my neck and reminds me to always do my research.

    Dust off your copy of Out of This World if you're old like I am, or buy it from GOG if you still have your youth.
  25. Jan 5, 2014
    The high scores and the low scores are probably divided by the people getting the story and the people who don't get the story. I didn't follow what the story was about. Story telling isn't about graphics but this was too less emphasize on graphics for me.
  26. Jul 16, 2013
    The 88 metascore is very misleading. I would not consider this even a game. It is a small interactive story that has nearly 0 things to interact with. The game takes around 10 minutes to finish.

    If you want to PLAY a game then avoid this demo. If you want to feel artistic and look at the blocky characters while wondering what is the meaning of live and how Reservoir Dogs is the best
    movie ever then this is the right kind of entertainment for you. Expand
  27. Feb 26, 2013
    Thirty Flights of Loving is a first-person interactive story. The story's incredibly short, and can be experienced in about 15 minutes. The story itself is told in short, disconnected segments requiring you to fill in the blanks yourself.

    30 Flights is definitely an arthouse game. It has an interesting approach to interactive storytelling that may be worth seeing, but unfortunately, the
    story it tells is unremarkable. From what I could tell, there just isn't much substance there. What's much more interesting is playing with the developer's commentary on, so you can see some of the thought that went behind the experience.

    The game's prequel is also included, and while it's a longer game with more gameplay elements, it's designed clumsily, and you might be left with no idea where to go.

    This game has a very niche audience, and to them, this game will be worth far more than the asking price. It wasn't for me, though, and I get the feeling that it's not for most people, especially because the price doesn't pay for much content. It's worth experiencing if you have a few extra minutes, but I wouldn't pay over a dollar for this. If this looks interesting to you, I'd recommend checking out The Stanley Parable instead.
  28. Nov 16, 2013
    This can hardly be called a game, I would not even dare calling it a demo, because also those are longer than this piece of Critic reviews must have been ordered and paid by someone, because a normal gamer just can't evaluate this "game" at more than 0 points. The only thing you can do is to walk and talk to characters. When you get to a point by walking, this sequence ends and you appear on a totally unrelated place, and walk again. This is repeated about 30 times (I did not count), and the game is over. If I knew that beforehand, I would throw the 2 into a bin instead of buying this that would be a better investment. Expand
  29. AWG
    Jun 4, 2013
    This is not a game and whatever this is supposed to be I must admit I didn't find it very artsy neither.
    The story is confusing (what's with the wedding scene?) and the graphics are not so interesting.
    I don't regret the money I spent for this (less than 2€ on Steam) but I surely regret those 20 minutes I spent running it.
  30. Nov 27, 2013
    I don't get this game. It is so weird and random (Not in a good way). The gameplay is none. The only thing you do is move. THAT'S IT! The game is really bad, stupid and it just doesn't make any sense.
  31. Dec 24, 2013
    I can't believe I brought this game, story isn't interesting at all. And to reviews saying it put a lot of love and details in the game clearly hasn't been playing it. More of a school project...

    Play The Stanley Parable that is a good game with interesting narrative. Not this...
  32. Apr 16, 2014
    TFOL seems to be a very controversial game when it comes to reviews, as it's a very "iffy" game, if you can even call it a game. I would call TFOL an experimentation, a prototype; a look into how storytelling can be changed. Saying that, I understand what Blendo was going for, they were attempting something new and trying to tell a story in under 20 minutes, but honestly it just didn't work. Maybe if they did something different this technique could've worked but it's just not polished enough and it feels broken or incomplete. There's even a couple random scenes that have nothing to do with the story they're trying to tell, like why do I need to know how wings work? I learned that in highschool and I didn't care then either. I just feel it's irrelevant and was simply to add a couple minutes more to the game so people can't say that it's less than 20 minutes (took me 24 minutes to complete both games (Gravity Bone and TFOL)).

    What I'm getting at here is if a developer wants to make a unique game, or an artsy game, throwing a couple stylized 3D models together in a few random consecutive scenes is not the way to do it. I love art indie games, I'm almost ashamed to say it since so many people hate them, but I like the art subgenre game that's been somewhat popular in the past few years (I loved Dear Esther). But TFOL doesn't do it right, and that's why I'm giving it such a low grade. I don't understand how the critics can rate it so high, call this what you will, but I think there's a small possibility that the critics were paid off, and some users jumped into the critic bandwagon (which happens pretty often around controversial games) and gave TFOL high scores to show that they weren't "too stupid to figure out the story." I understand the story, and I still think TFOL is a bad game. While playing it I could sense a fresh breath of air hiding under the badly put-together game, but until that refreshing feel surfaces, TFOL remains a complete mess. Hey, at least Blendo didn't make the character walk really slow to extend the length of the game.

    In short, these could be some reasons this game is rated so high:
    •Critics paid off, users jump in bandwagon
    •People want to pretend they understand it, even if there's nothing to understand
    •Purchasers can't face the fact they got ripped off, trick themselves into thinking it's good
    •Developer needed some cash and had an incomplete prototype laying around
    •Definitely not because the game is good
  33. Aug 7, 2014
    Not a game, pretensions as hell. The professional ratings only prove journalists want to seem intelligent by liking this ****. Theres no gameplay to speak off, and while there are a few interesting segments, the game is largely just filled with a bunch of ****

    Might make for an interesting flash game thats >>>>>>>>>FREE
  34. Jan 28, 2014
    If this so called game had been honest about what it was I wouldn't have to give it such a terribly low score. But the simple fact is that it promised me a unique game, yet after I had handed over my money it turned out to be a short, uninteresting, completely linear story about some heist or something. I honestly can't even remember, that's how great it was. It is more like an interactive short story than a game, but not in a good way. Interactive only means you make you character walk somewhere with your keyboard sometimes, and sometimes you click something with your mouse. You don't do these things because you want to, or because you have the option to, you do them because you must.

    There is no depth to the characters, no incentive to continue other than wanting to get this the hell over with, there's no voice-acting, no text, nothing. The developers made the characters moan from time to time, that's it. All of this no doubt in an attempt to come of as "artsy".

    For me, that pretty much sums up this game: arty-farty for the sake of being arty-farty. At the end of the game you get to walk around in a museum of sorts, where the devs display all the assets and explain about the creation of the game. Like you would do with something that actually deserves that extra attention. This piece of software doesn't. It feels more like a high-school project for Game Design 101 than anything else. Only thing good about it is that it is over quick.

    You know what all these "professional" critics with their high scores remind me of? They remind me of people who know nothing about art, but who, when they are confronted with some questionable modern work of art which they know nothing about, frown, stroke their chin, swirl their wine, and say something like: "I really like the depth and the balance of colors", or some vague stuff like that, just to make it seem like they know what the hell is going on. They don't because there is, quite simply, nothing going on at all. Same with these critics who don't know what this game is supposed to be. "I clearly don't understand this **** but I'll give it an 8 anyway because it seems "arty" and I want to seem cultured, and I don't want to admit that I have no clue what's going on."

    There's a difference between art and arty-farty, my friends. Art MOVES you. The only movement this game creates is me walking away from my pc.

    1 point for simply existing, that's an achievement...I guess.

  35. Nov 14, 2012
    I'm a proud supporter of indie games. I had some spare money lying around in my Steam wallet and I decided I'd take a gamble and get a couple games. I was not expecting to be "blown-away" by this game, but i was expecting it to be unique, interesting and fun. Most of all I was expecting to be able to enjoyably play it for at least a couple hours worth of time. How wrong and disappointed I was. The story lasts approximately 20 minutes and there is no replayability to it. What makes the medium of art and story telling that is known as "video games" is their ability to let the user interact with the game. The level of interaction introduced in this game is dreadful; Google Earth is more interactive and it's free. I not only spent more time at the beginning just tweaking the graphics, but in the end I also enjoyed setting up my graphics more than the actual game. If you are looking for a good indie game of some sort, DO NOT BUY THIS GAME! Go buy something like Machinarium or LIMBO. Collapse

Generally favorable reviews - based on 10 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 10
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 10
  3. Negative: 0 out of 10
  1. 80
    Thirty Flights bets on and is transcended by, emotion. It’s part of a newly-arrived scene (fronted by the beautiful Dear Esther from Chinese Room) that attempts to blur the lines between gaming and art. You are given the tools to live a story that was written for you. Whether it will win you or not, rests completely upon your actions. [October 2012]
  2. Jan 7, 2013
    Condensed into thirteen minutes of play, Thirty Flights of Loving is a really interesting story.
  3. Nov 12, 2012
    Thirty Flights of Loving is as refreshing as it is alienating. The series of short scenes take you on a bizarre roller coaster ride, on which you unfortunately have little influence.