Sure!
I understand why it easily falls into the "wild statement" category. In general, games are often too heavily dependent on gameplay mechanics or expected outcomes to be considered good, especially after 2010 (which is kind of weird because mainstream games in the '90s were a lot more experimental than today's). Personally, I’m not impressed with most of the gameplay mechanics we get nowadays, especially when you consider how much most games stretch them out. I really have a hard time understanding how people can spend hundreds of hours on meaningless gameplay.
I say all this because, for me, this is where Firewatch truly shines... and why so many people don’t like it. Putting genre preferences aside, Firewatch was so unique and contributed so much to the walking simulator scene that, alone, makes it a great game to start with. The writing is natural, organic, and engaging in such a way that the dialogue becomes the core mechanic—how you traverse a space with a narrative guiding you. That’s no easy task; it’s a huge accomplishment. And the atmosphere that comes with it is perfectly tuned. It’s very rare to find games that truly achieve this. What triple-A games have managed to do this? In the same decade, I can think of Alien Isolation, and maybe that’s it? Big games that reach this level of quality mostly come from the '90s (FFIX says hi! Haha).
One last point that I think is interesting—and often criticized—is the story itself, particularly the ending. Honestly, it’s difficult to understand. The game has a rising arc, organically intensifying as it seamlessly blends human emotions with mystery and conspiracy, only to arrive at the most grounded ending it could have achieved. It’s a bold ending, unlike anything seen in the industry—uncommon even in cinema. People struggle with frustration, and that’s exactly what the game makes you deal with. The protagonist is suffering, frustrated, and feels more alive than ever, only to be pulled back into reality.