Trigger warning: transgendered individuals may find this game triggering. Loved by Alexander Ocias is a short platformer about... well, that's up to you. The game controls with the [arrow] keys, and from time to time you're given choices you can make simply by clicking on words on the screen. A voice follows you throughout the game, instructing you to do various things (or not), and whether you obey affects both your possible ending and the world around you.
So in essence the game boils down to deciding whether to question the directives you're given. Typically if you disobey, the game frowns on you for it. The whole thing has a very stark and unsettling presentation, and this was probably a smart choice; with its minimal design, Loved provides a blank canvas for you to project your own emotions and thoughts onto. Considering Ocias claims he wanted to make something "confrontational", letting players draw their own conclusions and experiences was the best decision to make. Of course, this does mean that people who aren't interested in introspection are going to look at it and wonder what all the fuss is about; Loved is extremely short, and not particularly difficult, and even a few playthroughs will take less than ten minutes.
Loved is also interesting in that I took two possible meanings from it, and one I really disliked. I've seen people "explaining" the game to other players, and I'm not sure I think that's the right thing to do; after all, if I feel one way about something designed to provoke a personal reaction and you feel another, does that mean one of us really needs to be right in our interpretations? Which in turn raises another interesting question. Is art only successful if it explains itself to everyone? If everyone "gets it" or loves it? Or is it still a success if just one person in the whole world looks at it and catches their breath? As a game, Loved is a relatively simple and straightforward platformer. Whether it's something else, something important, largely depends on how you look at it.