Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
Tags
(+9)

This was a phenomenal exploration of hostile design! It's amazing how far designers have gone to try and mask their intent by working some sense of "aesthetic" into their benches.

With how uncomfortable they are to even SIT on, it's reached a point where you have to wonder why they'd bother installing them in the first place. Is it just a formality now? Are the benches just there to create the vague sensation of a public space without actually contributing to it? The most mind boggling design has got to be those spherical benches. I can't even believe those are meant to be sat/leaned on.

I appreciate the small details around the museum that mesh in with the theme, like the sealed fire door that doesn't have a proper knob, the museum-wide warnings not to touch the walls, and most notably the game's viewport being set in an aspect ratio that crops the viewer's perspective into a small gap to peer through.

I also admire the work you put in to painstakingly re-create all of those benches. The final presentation is super crisp, and I am genuinely amazed.

(+2)

Thank you, what a lovely read!

One of the most common (and least visible) attempts at exclusionary design is not to just not build any public seating at all. It's quite common in financial districts, the only people they want in thoe spaces are either walking to work or getting lunch.

And yea, I'd say the most useless of them are mostly there to offer the illusion of a civil, public space. They are perches for the consumer class to drink a coffee on and nothing more. Though, I don't think those spherical ones are even intended for perching. It's just a slightly more visually appealing way of stopping people leaning up against the wall than... with another wall??

(+3)

I've seen target use the spherical ones out front of their stores; depending on their positioning, they can double as bollards to protect pedestrians from oncoming traffic. Which is interesting because the entire point would be negated if people DID sit on them.

(+3)

heh, yea. The fact that they are interchangeably used as seats or bollards implies a general negligence in design thinking.