The last few games you beat and rate them IV

[Osprey]

When it comes to narrative experience, I don't really appreciate absolute control/freedom because I wouldn't be able to come up with something as worthwhile or cohesive as what I hope a creative who's really good at their job can (especially considering the limited tools I would have in comparison)-- the value of the outcome is what matters to me, not the unpredictability, novelty, or agency of the experience. I also wouldn't ACTUALLY be creating the experience for myself anyways-- They're still supplying all of it and I'm just experiencing a small subsection of it in an non-streamlined order.

I, personally, don't see anything valuable or worthwhile about the game tying your hands behind your back whenever the developers want you to experience their narrative, especially in an open world game. Last night, I played a GTA4 mission (that was like so many other missions in that game and others) in which I had to chase a guy who's getting away in a car, but he always takes the same route and I'm allowed to catch up to him. All that I can do is stay close enough behind him until he eventually runs into a roadblock, gets out of the car and runs into a construction site. I'm then prompted to get out of the car and run after him, but, again, I'm not allowed to catch up to him until he runs into a dead end. There, we have our scripted confrontation, just like the developers planned all along. That whole creative narrative sequence (from the start of the chase to the end) may seem like a better experience than I would've had on my own, but where's the value or fun in doing things exactly as intended and scripted? Why couldn't the developers have randomized his getaway route and allowed me to catch up to him and disable his car? That way, my experience would've been slightly different from every other gamer and different for me each time that I played it. The developers could've still had him get out out of the disabled car and run away on foot and, then, once I caught up to him, have their scripted conversation. I would've felt a sense of accomplishment that way. Where's the sense of accomplishment with the on-rails mission that the developers created?

Developers are always trying to give gamers experiences, and that's fine, but they tend to think that the best ones are ones that they tightly control. They need to know when to stop and give some of the control to the gamer, IMO. For example, I don't have a problem with a game setting up a chase sequence like the one that I described for me to participate in or with there being a scripted sequence at the end. Just let me have a unique experience in-between that is affected by my choices and skill. In case you haven't watched the video above, there's a great example of how, in GTA3, before such a car chase mission, it was possible to steal the bad guy's car and plant a bomb in it so that, before the car chase could even begin, the guy would blow himself up. Talk about thinking outside of the box. That's way more creative and rewarding than the way that the developers intended for the mission to be completed. Figuring out and pulling off creative ways to complete missions that even the developers may not have thought of is what a lot of us love about open world games.

 

[saluki]

I've tried 3 times now to get into RDR 2. I played the absolute shit out of the first RDR but this one...I don't know if it's just because i'm older and don't have the patience for it or what. Things like cleaning my gun, taking care of my horse, shaves and haircuts, slowwwwwwwly flipping through items catalogues, etc...the game seems too tedious to me. I don't even remember where I am in the game. I think the last thing I did was get that blonde dude from my gang out of prison by ripping the bars off with my horse.

Am i overreacting here? Is the game not as tedious as I think and it's worth it to stick through?

I couldn't agree more but obviously a lot of gamers love it. I can't believe the words that people throw around about RDR 2; "The most profound experience I've ever had" seems to be a common theme. Wut?

I admit the graphics in the beginning are awesome, even on my launch PS4. The snow effects and audio that goes along with it are outstanding. But it didn't take long for me to realize it might not match up to RDR for me. I have to watch a deer's torturous death struggle if I don't make a clean kill with the bow and arrow? Seriously?

But be careful who you argue with. RDR 2 has serious fanboys.

 

[Shareefruck]

I, personally, don't see anything valuable or worthwhile about the game tying your hands behind your back whenever the developers want you to experience their narrative, especially in an open world game. Last night, I played a GTA4 mission (that was like so many other missions in that game and others) in which I had to chase a guy who's getting away in a car, but he always takes the same route and I'm allowed to catch up to him. All that I can do is stay close enough behind him until he eventually runs into a roadblock, gets out of the car and runs into a construction site. I'm then prompted to get out of the car and run after him, but, again, I'm not allowed to catch up to him until he runs into a dead end. There, we have our scripted confrontation, just like the developers planned all along. That whole creative narrative sequence (from the start of the chase to the end) may seem like a better experience than I would've had on my own, but where's the value or fun in doing things exactly as intended and scripted? Why couldn't the developers have randomized his getaway route and allowed me to catch up to him and disable his car? That way, my experience would've been slightly different from every other gamer and different for me each time that I played it. The developers could've still had him get out out of the disabled car and run away on foot and, then, once I caught up to him, have their scripted conversation. I would've felt a sense of accomplishment that way. Where's the sense of accomplishment with the on-rails mission that the developers created?

Developers are always trying to give gamers experiences, and that's fine, but they tend to think that the best ones are ones that they tightly control. They need to know when to stop and give some of the control to the gamer, IMO. For example, I don't have a problem with a game setting up a chase sequence like the one that I described for me to participate in or with there being a scripted sequence at the end. Just let me have a unique experience in-between that is affected by my choices and skill. In case you haven't watched the video above, there's a great example of how, in GTA3, before such a car chase mission, it was possible to steal the bad guy's car and plant a bomb in it so that, before the car chase could even begin, the guy would blow himself up. Talk about thinking outside of the box. That's way more creative and rewarding than the way that the developers intended for the mission to be completed. Figuring out and pulling off creative ways to complete missions that even the developers may not have thought of is what a lot of us love about open world games.

I agree that that's technically an enhancement in immersion and surface-level engagement, but again, that's of superficial value to me that I feel is essentially just pointless busy-work-- The sense of accomplishment in chasing after a thug and catching him seems very trivial to me, so I couldn't really care less if a game allowed me to do that instead of showing it being done.

Another adjacent issue I have with this kind of thing is that good game design is hard to come by and the actual worthwhile meat of it in a videogame can only spread itself so thin-- Most games are only able to juggle one or two intricate systems of game mechanics that actually turn out to be interesting (and that's only if the game is any good), and any ancillary moments of interaction tends to become an afterthought that is unlikely to end up similarly well-designed or meaningful, in terms of mechanics. Because of this, I actually kind of hate the idea of games trying to game-ify every component of its narrative in order to make you feel more immersed in every action. Think of the example you gave-- if that moment were game-ified the way you outlined, do you think it would realistically end up amazingly well-designed gameplay or mediocre gameplay? (not that GTA4 has much of the former to begin with)-- While I get that you would appreciate the improvement in role-playing immersion, I personally would not appreciate introducing a moment of weaker gameplay for its sake. Modern game developers focus too much on giving the player as much cool stuff to do and customize as possible, and not enough on whether or not each thing they can do would actually be purposeful or essential to include. That's essentially my big issue with open world games.

Game design and the potential for compelling puzzle and strategy doesn't really improve the more variables you introduce into the equation-- In my experience, it usually works the other way around. This is why chess in its vanilla form tends to be more strategically interesting, intellectually stimulating, and beautiful in design and elegance than attempts to expand on it, complicate it, and make it more realistic to actual war combat. Beauty in game design comes from thoughtfully considered restrictions and closed systems-- refining it to its rawest essentials. This is the kind of thing I appreciate most, and it's the antithesis of the open world approach.

I'd prefer if a game perfectly designs and fine-tunes specific components meant to be interactive and game-ified (the combat system, map design, etc.) based on the resources available to them, and has the minimalist sensibilities to build the game around JUST what they can do perfectly and nothing else, while complementing it with a compelling, carefully directed (and potentially scripted) narrative to add tasteful flavour to it. Game-ifying everything in between and opening up every possibility for the sake of making a game feel more interactive/real (and satisfying to "role-play" individual moments in a narrative) at best seems irrelevant to me, and at worse harms the experience by introducing more needless excess/poorly executed busy-work and making it feel less tight and cohesive in quality.

Hypothetically, in a perfect world where game developers had unlimited time, resources, and ambition to fully flesh out an entire open world where absolutely every inch of its possibilities for interaction are every bit as mechanically well designed as a game with a perfectly thought out and designed mechanics, then I'd revisit this sentiment. But I tend to view that as impossible and infeasible, until proven otherwise. As they are now, I find them bloated and less tasteful than the best examples of the alternative, and I don't particularly find the thing that it does admittedly improve to be valuable.

You're right that we're probably unlikely to find common ground on this, though.

 

[Ceremony]

​

Rocket League (PS4, 2015)

In 2009, a game called Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket-Powered Battle-Cars appeared on the PlayStation Store. I downloaded the demo, loved it, bought the game and put a lot of time into it over the next three years. In 2015 its sequel, Rocket League, was released and included in PlayStation and Microsoft's free games services. The whole world now knew the joy I did, and a developer with an original idea that put a lot of effort into the first game now had the success they deserved. In 2017 I finally got a PS4 and got to play Rocket League myself. It was the first PS4 game I played, and the first PS4 trophy I earned. I recently finally finished all the DLC trophies and got the platinum trophy, so here is a review of it.

The premise is simple. It's football with cars. 1v1 or teams of 2, 3 or 4 spend five minutes trying to score more goals than the other team. The cars can jump and flip when in the air, and you can collect boost from various points in the arena that give your car a rocket boost, mainly for extra speed, but allowing you to hit the ball a certain way or demolish opponents, causing them to wait a few seconds for a respawn.

With the rise of competitive online games properly coming into the mainstream as the 8th generation of consoles made it more widely accessible, I've only put regular time into two such games. While my eventual review of Gran Turismo Sport could genuinely be longer than the Bible, I feel as if it's much easier to sum up my experience here. It's the ideal game for anyone, of any skill level and of any amount of free time to put into it.

For five years it's retained a player base that means matchmaking works. You'll be playing against people your level, and your level will move accordingly. If you play a match or two once a week you'll get what you're looking for - something to kill some time, with the occasional burst of excitement or elation. If you're skilled enough and dedicated enough you can put thousands of hours in and become a pro player. I've watched the odd video of pros playing, and it's a different game as far as I'm concerned. The car and ball control is obscene. The thing is though, I don't need to be at that level to get the same amount of enjoyment from it on an individual basis, and that's okay.

Only one issue comes to mind that stop me from saying the game is perfect. Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket-Powered Battle-Cars had two offline modes, one with matches against increasingly difficult AI opponents, and one featuring an assortment of mini-games. Some were taking shots or making saves from set positions. One featured a cube instead of a ball. There was one where you couldn't cross the halfway line. At the start of that mode though was stuff a lot more basic - moving, collecting boost, power-sliding, all against the clock. These allowed new players to get used to just moving the car around, which is a big help. The training regimes in Rocket League are virtually meaningless in comparison, and even the custom routines you can play don't always help because there's no scaling to them, or proper explanation of how to perform advanced moves. Playing against the AI offline is also no help to hone your skills, they barely operate at the same level as the lowest-ranked human players.

To give you a comparison, here's a video where some novices gave the game a try. It's infuriating:



Here's a later one which features some basic coaching for them, and the difference is massive:



I don't know how readily I would have taken to the game if I hadn't had so much experience of the basic gameplay mechanics. I don't know that the game is very inviting for new players at the bottom end with that in mind, since even though you'd be matched with people of your level, the standard would be pretty poor. If you want to learn even the most basic advanced mechanics you basically have to rely on the community for guides. It's great that this community is able to exist, but it means a lot of work.

Since the game's release there have been various updated adding new maps, cars and game modes. I'm a big fan of the extra modes, personally. Snow Day, the same premise with a hockey puck instead of a ball, is great fun. My highest online ranking has always come from Rumble, the basic game mode with randomly assigned power-ups for everyone. Why react and anticipate what happens normally when your opponent can fire out a boxing glove on a spring and score a goal at twice the speed as normal? Being able to jump straight into a match after one finishes means you can always make up for a bad game or a toxic team-mate, or jump into a new game mode entirely if you fancy a bigger change.

I can't speak to any of the e-sports scene surrounding this game, but based on my relative knowledge of sim-racing, the game seems to have been popular immediately and built on that successfully as the years have gone by. I don't know what the future will be for Rocket League as a new console generation looms, but with 200+ hours in it I'm not going to stop any time soon, and I'm glad that this remains as popular as I knew it should have been all those years ago.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

Manual Samuel - 8/10

Manual Samuel is probably the dumbest game I ever played and I couldn't put it down. You control every aspect of Samual manually, each step, each breath, each time you blink your eyes. It sounds tedious but it's oddly fun and the humor is great. Definitely worth grabbing. It took me a little under 2 hours to complete and I finished it in one sitting. Great pacing, great length, and a lot of stupid fun.

I know it was free on PC via the Humble store if anyone picked it up. It's $2 on Steam right now, definitely worth the price tag.

 

[Osprey]

You're right that we're probably unlikely to find common ground on this, though.

I actually don't disagree with some of what you just said. I appreciate simplicity in a lot of game genres, too. I'm only talking about open world games. You're understandably trying to explain why you don't like them by talking about other genres that you do like, but that's not what I'm talking about or what the conversation started out being about. There's not much common ground because we're trying to talk about different things.

You seem to be trying to make a point about open world games by generalizing, but I don't necessarily disagree with it in general. Minimalism and focus may be a good general rule of thumb, but it doesn't really apply to open world games, which are liked for the very reason that they go in the opposite direction. It's sort of like how what one appreciates in a Picasso is completely different from what one appreciates in a Raphael. Having a single opinion of what makes for good gameplay that should be applied to all genres is like having a single opinion of what makes a good painting that should be applied to all styles. That doesn't make sense to me and seems like a good way to limit what you're able to appreciate.

If I were sure that the "beauty in art" is everything that Raphael's paintings represent, I would never be able to appreciate Picasso's paintings or even understand what others see in them. Similarly, if you're sure that the "beauty in game design" is everything that open world games are not known for, you'll never appreciate them or even understand why others like them so much. They're not everyone's cup of tea, but there's something really attractive about them to a lot of other people, which I think suggests that there can be beauty in open world games and that our ideas of game design maybe need to be updated.

 

[Shareefruck]

I actually don't disagree with some of what you just said. I appreciate simplicity in a lot of game genres, too. I'm only talking about open world games. You're understandably trying to explain why you don't like them by talking about other genres that you do like, but that's not what I'm talking about or what the conversation started out being about. There's not much common ground because we're trying to talk about different things.

You seem to be trying to make a point about open world games by generalizing, but I don't necessarily disagree with it in general. Minimalism and focus may be a good general rule of thumb, but it doesn't really apply to open world games, which are liked for the very reason that they go in the opposite direction. It's sort of like how what one appreciates in a Picasso is completely different from what one appreciates in a Raphael. Having a single opinion of what makes for good gameplay that should be applied to all genres is like having a single opinion of what makes a good painting that should be applied to all styles. That doesn't make sense to me and seems like a good way to limit what you're able to appreciate.

If I were sure that the "beauty in art" is everything that Raphael's paintings represent, I would never be able to appreciate Picasso's paintings or even understand what others see in them. Similarly, if you're sure that the "beauty in game design" is everything that open world games are not known for, you'll never appreciate them or even understand why others like them so much. They're not everyone's cup of tea, but there's something really attractive about them to a lot of other people, which I think suggests that there can be beauty in open world games and that our ideas of game design maybe need to be updated.

I'm not sure I understand what more you would want out of me in this discussion short of agreement, though. I've acknowledged what I think other people like and find attractive about open world games and what qualities it admittedly enhances (simulation, immersion, role playing that's easier to escape into) as they relate to your examples. I've explained why I don't find your examples personally compelling or translating into something that I can consider valuable or strong design-wise and narrative-wise. I've explained what I do find valuable that open world games lack and are antithetical to, and I've explained the parameters that I think could result in an open world game that I would highly appreciate (and why I find it unlikely). Personally, I can't imagine something I value that wouldn't satisfy some degree of minimalism (or where its lack of minimalism doesn't hurt its value for me)-- If you can suggest examples that would make me think twice about this observation that would make it fallible for myself, I'd entertain them, but that's sincerely about all I can do.

Surely it would be reasonable for someone to also not find a great deal of value in one of Raphael or Picasso for reasons that are consistent as well. It doesn't seem fair to consider someone "limiting what they're able to appreciate" as if that's inherently a bad thing simply because they don't appreciate something that many others do. I see marginal benefits to open world games for pretty similar reasons to why you seem to find great benefits in them (although some things you brought up I'm skeptical about like puzzle/strategy potential and I've explained why), so it's not like I'm turning a blind eye to these things-- you just happen to value those benefits a lot more.

A lot of people find attractive qualities in all sorts of things that I'm sure you have limited appreciation and respect for as well (if not outright disdain for). That doesn't mean you're guilty of unfairly and narrowmindedly closing yourself off from them if you happen to disagree about the value/worth of those qualities.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

Lethal VR - 8/10

It's one of the early VR titles but it's a great addition to any VR library. The asking price is a bit steep but it's often on sale for <$5, grab it when you see it on sale for sure. It's pretty short, you'll complete all the challenges and get all the achievements in less than 2 hours. That being said, the game mechanics are great, it's just a bunch of mini games that last no more than a minute each level. I'll definitely be keeping this installed even though I'm done with it to have a game I can show VR off with. It's simple, basic mechanics, and you can jump in with no knowledge of the game.

Furthermore, while some of the challenges are tedious (anything you throw feels kind of wonky,) it's fun going for high scores. Some levels legit only take 5 seconds so you'll find yourself playing the level over and over trying to get a new high score.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

Void Bastards - 7/10

Void Bastards is a roguelite FPS that has its flaws but is still fun. The core gameplay loops is solid and it has a nice aesthetic. I did have some issues with the game, mostly with how bad the UI is in between levels and how annoying it was to have enemy name tags over the enemies from halfway across the map, making it difficult to see the enemies themselves, but overall, it was still a fun game. It took me about 8 hours to complete, that seems to be the average length of the game.

I did enjoy the way you level items up, every level has one big item to loot that you can use to craft weapons. Every item you loot and weapons you craft will remain with you through death. You'll lose your character with whatever traits they have, all your ammo, supplies, and progress through the map. Dying wasn't very punishing unless you have tons of ammo and feel comfortable. I did start losing interest later in the game but the first 5-6 hours had me wanting more every time I sat down to play.

 

[Ryuji Yamazaki]

Dead Cells - 7/10

Fun Roguevania, whatever the hell you call it. Just gets too repititive. It's cool to mix and match your weapons and level them up, combo the bonus dmg, etc.

Beat it, but don't have any desire to continue on Hard mode. I feel like I got the experience.

Currently playing Rage 2 since it was $10 on Amazon. It's ok, typical shooter with upgrades, the open world doesn't seem to big thankfully. Very buggy, falling damage is absolutely f***ing stupid, menu/interface is awful, controls are clunky. Worth the $10 but I'd be pissed if I would've paid the full $60.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Dead Cells - 7/10

Fun Roguevania, whatever the hell you call it. Just gets too repititive. It's cool to mix and match your weapons and level them up, combo the bonus dmg, etc.

Beat it, but don't have any desire to continue on Hard mode. I feel like I got the experience.

Currently playing Rage 2 since it was $10 on Amazon. It's ok, typical shooter with upgrades, the open world doesn't seem to big thankfully. Very buggy, falling damage is absolutely f***ing stupid, menu/interface is awful, controls are clunky. Worth the $10 but I'd be pissed if I would've paid the full $60.

I agree with your Dead Cells thoughts - that sums up my experience as well. I beat it and did the daily runs for a few days then never touched it again. Did you do the alternate paths? There is a unique boss fight that you get to do if you take a different path and it's actually pretty fun, definitely worth checking out.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

That ends up being me with all roguelites I play. I beat it once and just never have any desire to play it again because it feels repetitive. Yeah, the level generation makes each run "unique" but half the time these games have like 20 different rooms and they just get placed in a random order. I did play Dead Cells and enjoyed it more than most roguelites but I don't even get to the end of most roguelites.

 

[Ryuji Yamazaki]

Nevermind, Rage 2 is absolute dogshit. The game freezes all the time. Had to restart my Xbox 3 times in a 30 minutes span.

 

[Unholy Diver]

Control - 7/10

This game got a lot of GOTY praise and I just don't see it, I had slow downs, I wasn't a fan of the enemy respawning, and the game has autosaving, but if you die you still go all the way back to the previous checkpoint/control point and all the enemies return, Death Stranding was head and shoulders above this in my book

 

[Ceremony]

I forgot to do this a while ago

Fahrenheit (PS4, 2016 - originally PS2, 2005)

Fahrenheit, or Indigo Prophecy if you're American, is the first big budget console release from Quantic Dream and David Cage, the team and man behind Heavy Rain, Beyond: Two Souls and Detroit: Become Human. Video games with an emphasis on the video rather than the game, where you advance a story through an assortment of quick time events and choices in key moments.

Rather than post a screed about why I like these games - which I'll probably do at some point as I play through the three after Fahrenheit - I'd like to focus solely on the first one for the time being. I feel like I need to try and make sense of what I've actually experienced over the past week. Spoilers, obviously.

You are Lucas Kane, an ordinary man who awakes from being possessed in a restaurant toilet to discover he's killed a man. He flees, and spends the rest of the game trying to figure out what happened. He was possessed in the custom of a Mayan ritual sacrifice carried out by the Oracle on behalf of the Orange Clan. The Oracle has to perform these murders in order to find the Indigo Child, who is integral in finding the answers to life and being able to live as the Earth's supreme beings. There is another, Purple Clan, who are an artificial intelligence-run collection of cyborgs who are trying to take this power for themselves, and put the world under their control. This is apparently responsible for the falling temperature worldwide in-game, where it starts out at -10 Celsius and ends up at -60.

(Side-note: You know what, I have no f***ing idea why this game was called Fahrenheit. Indigo Prophecy is a much cooler sounding name, and whenever the temperature is shown on-screen it's in Celsius. I think the word Fahrenheit is used once.)

You are also Carla Velante and Tyler Miles, two police officers investigating the murder. Carla ends up in a relationship with Lucas at the end after Lucas' previous girlfriend was killed by the Oracle in a trick to try and get to Lucas. Lucas and Carla eventually hook up in a secret underground network of people who watch for the actions of the Orange Clan, after a massive fight between Lucas and the Oracle over the Indigo Child. Lucas has visions and had a vision of the child in an orphanage, to which the Oracle followed him.

In addition to his visions Lucas has increased physical powers including increased physical strength and telekinesis. This is because he was exposed to the Chroma. There are only three of these in the world, and one of them was at the military base where he grew up. His mother came into contact with this while she was pregnant with him, which is why he has these powers.

I'm not going to try and review the story of this game, but I will say this. It ends very abruptly. Even moreso than I've made it seem there. The clans aren't brought in until about 90% of the way in. I think it's fair to say the game struggles with pacing. Rather than events making sense and having a logical order you'll do something, or something will happen, and the chapter following it will explain what's going on. The result is a story which constantly makes you feel like you're missing parts, or not following it. Considering how short it is this is disappointing, considering how batshit insane it all is, it's not surprising.

Aside from the story being barely coherent nonsense, the actual writing itself is atrocious. It's hard to have proper pacing or evocative dialogue when some or any of the pacing is reliant on the player. If you have to fill in the speech then you're not watching a story unfold, you're trying to watch it unfold while constantly pressing unpause on the DVD player remote. That doesn't matter though, because the dialogue is embarrassing. It's ironic that for a game that aims to straddle the line between film and video game (I'm pretty sure the 'interactive drama' name didn't appear until Heavy Rain) that most of the writing feels like it came from someone who's had no actual human interaction in their life, who's only ever watched movies. The voice acting is fairly competent which probably makes what they're working with stand out but, honestly, I cringed my way through the whole thing. David Cage was solely responsible for all of the writing here. 2000 pages of it. There's more in the other Quantic Dream games I'm going to play next. I'm honestly at a loss as to how this managed to convince anyone the format works and was worth pursuing.

The characterisation is pretty terrible. It's not helped by the game's bizarre pacing, with characters coming and going with an apparent assumed knowledge on the part of the player, but there are cases which are just shocking. Some of it feels like an excuse to manufacture gameplay, like the time where Carla is suddenly claustrophobic and you need to control her breathing. The writing doesn't help when characters have relationships which are unexplained, but none of them behave in a normal or natural way. The best way I can think to describe the writing is childish. Not even inexperienced or naïve, but just feeling as if it's by someone who doesn't have a lot of experience of the world or human interaction. Come to think of it, given the reports about the workplace atmosphere at Quantic Dream that have come out in the past few years, this shouldn't really be surprising.

If you're unfamiliar with Cage's work, they're interactive dramas where the bulk of the gameplay is moving characters around spaces, interacting with objects and other people, and hearing their thoughts. During action sequences, quick time events dictate whether you pass or fail a section. Fahrenheit has the standard QTE problem, where you focus so much on the prompts you miss what's going on in the action. This isn't helped with this being a port of a 2005 PS2 game, with the analog stick prompts often feeling clumsy and imprecise. I don't mind quick time events, but even with the PS4 controller these were tricky. God knows what it would have been like on an original controller. There's a lives system where you can fail some parts of a section without being reset which is sort of useful. There are also a few times where failing the QTE is the best option, and I can't decide if that's actually quite clever or just insulting.

In spite of everything I've criticised Fahrenheit for, there's something much, much worse. The game is spectacularly racist. In an I can't actually believe the things I'm seeing and hearing kind of way.

- Tyler is black. Whenever Tyler is on-screen he is accompanied by soul or R'n'B music, and he walks like Huggy Bear from Starsky and Hutch. His house looks like the entirety of the 70s funk scene threw up on it.

- During the investigation, Tyler goes to a book store. It's run by an old Chinese man. Upon seeing him, Tyler says (internally) "Woah, he looks just like the old dude from Gremlins! If he gives me a box with a furry creature in it I'm out of here!" The guy then has the worst put-on Chinese accent you've ever heard. Think the Simpsons episode where Krusty tried doing stand-up.
... but, if you successfully complete the section, you find out that the accent is put on. He then devolves into an ayyyyyyyy fuggedaboudit guy from Brooklyn. He's never been further abroad than Long Island, he just puts the voice on because people like it. "I'm more American than you are," he actually says. I'm at a loss.

I'm going to start Heavy Rain soon, and I know it's better than this. I can't actually say I didn't like Fahrenheit, it was okay. I liked it for what it was. It was short and ludicrous enough to not wear me out.

 

[Cheddabombs]

Just beat The Witcher 3, plus all the DLC, and I'm obsessed lol. I already want to start up NG+

 

[robertmac43]

Gears of War 4: 7/10

This was my first experience with the Gears franchise and I thought it was overall an okay game. From a story perspective, Gears 4 is only alright; it doesn't do anything special and the characters are only alright. That being said I really did like the game play, especially in the second half of the game. Once the fight switches from the COG to the Swarm the battles become more gory, intense, and overall satisfying. It was a fast paced second half and I loved using the saw on the Lancer.

The ending of the game was intriguing; that paired with the stellar game play though the second half, has convinced me to give Gears 5 a whirl.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (2019)
Developed by Infinity Ward

Finally played it. It was fine.

My biggest gripe with the campaign is the unrealized potential of the narrative and gameplay. My main issue with the worst COD campaigns is the continual removal of control from the player, something Modern Warfare sort of minimizes. Infinity Ward often limits player movement in this one in order to sell authenticity, and there are situations where it works: Clean House, the first half of Wolves' Den, and Highway of Death are all fine gameplay segments where the game often holds your hand, and I'm fine with that. Embassy is just on the cusp of greatness, but the horde mode-like ending goes on a bit too long for my tastes. On the flip side, Going Dark is a fantastically designed level with multiple paths to completion, and is one of the series' finest.

Yet the rushed, fan servicey ending gives it all away. It's not like anything is egregious in isolation, nor is the story terrible, but it did hammer home the game's tonal inconsistency, a certain something that prevented me from really buying into Infinity Ward's stated mission. Not an elite COD campaign, sure, but it also didn't satisfy the potential to ground the experience into something distinct.

Score: 7/10

 

[Ceremony]

​

Heavy Rain (PS4, 2016 - originally PS3, 2010)

Heavy Rain is the second of the console games from Quantic Dream, purveyors of "interactive drama" and simulated emotions. You control four different characters who are involved in the case of the Origami Killer, a serial killer who drowns their abducted victims - all young boys - in rainwater, before leaving their bodies on some waste ground with an origami figure and a single orchid. You play as Ethan Mars, father of Shaun, the latest boy taken. You play as Norman Jayden, an FBI profiler investigating the case. You play as Madison Paige, a journalist being nosey. You play as Scott Shelby, a private investigator investigating the case for families whose children disappeared

Gameplay takes the form of different chapters in control of each character. You move around an area interacting with things to make the story progress. You can listen to their thoughts on various events that are happening currently or have happened previously. The gameplay outside of walking around looking at things is predominately quick-time events, with timed button pressed and stick movements. If you leave aside any pre-conceptions about that format, it works. Compared to the previous Quantic Dream game Fahrenheit, there's a marked improvement in the gameplay, where analogue stick prompts actually correspond to movements a character makes. It's hard for me to assess and describe this objectively because of my previous experience with the game, but I think it's a viable means of control in this game.

Mechanically, the game isn't without its faults. The PS4 port has dreadful sound. The music and the sound effects all seem okay, but near enough every line of dialogue sounds tinny, as if someone recorded the PS3 version through an old phone then replayed it for this. It's really weird actually, considering every other technical aspect seems to have survived. The music remains a strength, with almost every chapter having perfectly fitting music. (There's one where you fight with someone with what sounds like JRPG boss battle music, I genuinely burst out laughing when I heard it.) It does look slightly dated in terms of graphics, but then it is ten years old. That isn't to say it looks bad, but it doesn't look as remarkable as it did in 2010.

Speaking of distinctive, as I was playing the game I was constantly fighting with my memories of past playthroughs and what I was seeing on the screen. I remembered the game, vividly. The music, the sound, the actions, the sequence of events, the outcomes of all the actions. The music cues, the cadence in characters' voices when they spoke, it was all there. The problem here is that before, the game was just that. It existed on its own in my head. Now I've played Fahrenheit, and I know it's not unique. This was done before by the same people, it's been done since by the same people, and it feels eerily similar. Even after finishing up I'm not decided if this is a good or a bad thing, but it wasn't something I ever got used to.

It doesn't help in this respect that the game's set in an unnamed area of Pennsylvania and with no licensed... anything, clothes, food, cars, buildings, pretty much every object is an original design and has the feel of the world of a generic children's cartoon. It's interesting that in a game which engenders an uncanny valley reaction because of the human characters that I find everything else besides to be the most disquieting. You can never get a second 'fresh' experience of a game like this, but now having extra QD experience, it all felt even more familiar.

On that note, the story. I like it, largely. I've discovered this time around that, like Fahrenheit, the plan was for supernatural elements to be included in the story. Ethan was going to have some psychic connection to the killer and there would be playable elements connected to that. These were taken out, but there are still references to them in dialogue. It feels weird to say that a game which I've always perceived as being new exquisitely made can seem disjointed, but it does now. Even that aside, there are some frankly bizarre connections that characters make towards the end of the game. I can't tell if this is down to David Cage's poor grasp of human interactions or not, but overall the polish and the involvement is great enough that you can look past these - in the heat of the moment at least, when you reflect afterwards you might have some problems.

I like that there are multiple endings. Based on the choices you make, based on the gameplay you're able to pass or fail, you can reach a range of endings for each character. As a game Heavy Rain works because it's somewhat unique, so extending that to giving individual players a reasonably unique experience is something that strengthens the game overall.

When I last played this game (2016) I spent a lot of time pontificating about how much I enjoyed it when the game released. About how new and different and exciting I thought the game was. Not so much for its story or its graphics, just the notion of a different style of gameplay which, while seeming facile at face value, offered a different kind of immersion which worked for the most part. I felt like I was doing something special just by owning something so unlike everything else I'd ever played. I made a bunch of origami cranes and hid them in plain sight around my school. Playing the game ten years later I honestly can't say whether it's good or bad because my perception of it is so wrapped up in the past. If you haven't played it I don't think I couldn't recommend it, purely for the novelty. Go in with an open mind, you might be surprised. You might have fun watching a film where you need to keep pressing play to keep it going.

 

[Unholy Diver]

COD WWII - 7.5/10

I'm not a COD player, just gave this a shot since it was free and I was looking for something short to bridge the gap to The Last of Us 2, it was ok, was a bit more on-rails than I thought it would be, nothing I would pay for but for free it was worth the play

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Guess what game I just realize I didn't play which would work great on a laptop with an integrated graphics card....Diablo II!

I do have Diablo III Ultimate Sin on the PS3 but don't have access to it right now so might as well start this up. Just gotta figure out where to get it from, if there's some re-made version or better modded one or something to get, etc.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

Shantae and the Seven Sirens - 5/10

This is the first Shantae game I've played. It's a fairly short Metroidvania. It's really basic as far as game play and exploration goes. As a result, I wouldn't recommend it. I'd say there's no challenge here but while the gameplay is basic, it's not even that easy. Your main attack is whipping your hair so you constantly have to get really close and just spam attacks. The problem is most of these enemies are constantly moving so they'll most likely run into you just while you're trying to attack them. The mechanics work and all, it just isn't very fun in my opinion.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order
Developed by Respawn Entertainment

Pros
-Excellent level design, emphasizing shortcuts and revisits, that's equal parts Dark Souls and Castlevania; Zeffo is a standout
-Timing-based combat rewards skill, patience and aggression in equal measures
-Despite uneven start, characters eventually become a strength to the overall story
-Force powers are well balanced, and the skill tree successfully reflects Cal's improving usage of the Force for combat and exploration puzzles
-Some great boss fights, notably the Inquisitors, Malicos and Gorgara
-Great stab at lore development
-Beautiful scenery and animation work

Cons
-Not a fan of weaker enemies being able to shrug off lightsaber hits, notably the awful Nightsister zombies
-The attack move upgrades in the skill tree are generally worthless as a result
-While finding the secrets are worth the effort, the regular chests are purely cosmetic
-Controls feel imprecise; Sekiro may have spoiled me here, but there are times where it became nearly impossible to manage crowds due to this issue
-Inflated boss count overshadows quality of boss fights
-Too easy for my tastes

Final Note: I am debating whether the lack of a fast travel option between meditation points was a good idea or not. There were several times while on Kashyyyk where I truly missed the feature in trying in return trips, but not implementing this feature probably forced Respawn into making some of the more intricate design choices in the final product. Either way, something to think about with a sequel in development.

Score: 7/10

 

[Unholy Diver]

The Last of Us 2 - 9.5/10 -

Great game, maybe a hair long, Dark, sad story, with some gruesome violence, but well done, looks great and plays great.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Detroit: Become Human.


I was a fan of Heavy Rain and Beyond: Two Souls so I guess you have to like these kinds of games but I thought Detroit was really well done, the gameplay was easier than Heavy Rain but still fun, the character models were some of the best I’ve ever seen in a game (since they used real actors) , the visuals were stunning and the performances were pretty good .

The story was interesting although there were some very heavy handed moments that kind of made you roll your eyes. I enjoyed the game up until the end where I ended up with the bad ending somehow. I’ll have to go back and play it again eventually because there’s a lot of content I missed due to making the wrong choices earlier.
Overall 8/10, quite good