The last few games you beat and rate them 5

[Unholy Diver]

Super Mario RPG - 8/10

Never played it when it originally came out, so I went in blind, while I still prefer the typical style Mario games, this was an enjoyable and interesting detour from the regular formula, definitely worth a play through

 

[x Tame Impala]

The Last of Us, Part 1 & 2
I recently got a PS5 and the first two games I played were TLOU Pt. 1 & 2. There's so much to say about both of these games and the experience in general but overall I was super impressed from start to finish. The Playstation 5 as a whole has been amazing and at least initially this system feels like it was made for gamers who love playing videogames. I could write a huge post about both of these games and the experience of playing them back to back so I'll try to keep it sort of brief (yeah right).

To start I have to say how much I enjoyed the gameplay-loop for both Parts. They're both very similar of course but Pt 2 added some nice improvements and they stuck the landing very well. This is my first foray into PS5 gaming so I'm not sure if most of their hit games are like this but the degree of "interactive-movie" TLOU gives was awesome as well. The cutscenes and character depth were so detailed and executed so proficiently. This was different level of gaming experience that I honestly didn't know was possible. I ended up being really invested in Joel & Ellie, as well as Abby albeit a little reluctantly. Both of these games hit some absolutely awesome character moments and the story told was overall something I truly enjoyed. Graphically, both of these games are beautiful as well. I'm happy they remastered them because it felt like playing two brand new games.

I played on "Moderate" difficulty for both of these games and plan on re-playing Pt. 1 on "Hard" as I've been told it's done really well. "Survivor" sounds like a total slog so maybe i'll get to that at some point but probably not. Looting and crafting seemed to actually matter and the balance of finding useful items was spot on for a first playthrough. It was important to me to find alcohol and I was happy to find screws to upgrade my weapons. The upgrade trees were simple enough and relevant to my playthrough. The value of a bullet and the scarcity of resources determining how you engage a situation was done so well I don't think I can think of a better example in gaming that I've come across. If I was heavy on resources I could be more Rambo, if I was running low I could be more Splinter Cell.

As far as the controversies in Pt. 2 go...

Not only do I think what happened with Joel was completely necessary, it was also completely brilliant. It was hard to watch and was a total gut punch but I don't recall many if any other moments in entertainment where a main character is so drastically and strategically removed from the story. It made complete sense I appreciated ND's efforts to humble the player's actions in Pt. 1 and show the damage it would actually cause. It was a humanizing decision and I loved it. With that said, while it made sense that Joel got what was coming to him, Pt. 2 does make a fatal mistake IMHO and tried too hard to make you sympathize with the other side.

They weren't the good guys. Fundamentally the were in the wrong for being willing to kill an innocent girl against her's and Joel's wishes. So I spent a lot of the game not caring much at all about their group's plights or the in's and out's of their organization. Creatively I thought it was a cool attempt to show the other side and how things are not as simple as good guys vs. bad guys but ultimately these were the people who beat Joel to death with a golf club and wanted to sacrifice Ellie without her knowledge or consent, and now I'm playing fetch with one of their dogs. It didn't resonate as well as Naughty Dog hoped but I feel like it was a cool try at the very least.

There were also some bad pacing issues in Pt. 2 that were distracting. Right as Ellie's story is reaching it's climax, things come all the way back down and we go at a snail's pace to play Abby's entire story. It made the game feel prolonged and I spent a lot of it wondering how close to the finish I was, only to play for a long time as this new character. Narratively the pacing was a distraction but I have to be honest, Abby's missions were some of the best of the two games and I really liked how ND made these two characters just different enough while not making one better than the other. I don't think I'll replay Pt.2 again any time soon whereas I'm probably replaying Pt. 1 immediately and I think the narrative decisions and pacing are the clear factors for that.

Being upset over Ellie's gay romance was absurd and maybe a lot has changed the last 5-6 years since the trailer first came out but people need to realize, if nothing else, that there are a lot of non-hetero gamers out there and they need some representation too. It didn't hurt anyone and the degree of complaining about it was a total waste of everyone's time. Abby, had they not made her so cartoonishly-muscly would have gone a long way in making her more likeable and sympathetic. Playing these two games has made me so apathetic to gaming reviews and internet discussions. If people were seamingly THAT upset over these things then I have less in common with people than I thought and going forward I'll just play games I think are cool.

OK! Long winded rant is over. The Last of Us Pt. 1 & 2, GREAT experience.

PLAYSTATION 5 REVIEWS:

TLOU Pt. 1 = 9.5/10
TLOU Pt. 2 = 8.5/10

 

[Turin]

Finished Phantom Liberty last night. 9/10 expansion. Only thing keeping it from being 10/10 is that I didn't find Dogtown that fun to explore - but the quests and writing and voice acting and new stuff is all great.

 

[Albatros]

Watch Dogs: Legion 7.5/10

A game that often feels like the makers were creating their magnum opus until a deadline hit them halfway and they went "f*** it, let's wrap this up." Really like the concept of being able to turn almost any NPC into the main character, even if the execution is rather unpolished I hope they go the same path in future games. Unfortunately especially directing of voice actors is consistently terrible, like they just ended up throwing the audio together without much quality control. Doesn't help the characters either if both the sound and content of their speech can be almost anything. The voice actor performances in themselves are mostly okay to good though, just badly utilized, and Pascal Langdale shines as the self-aware AI. Many of the elements and segments in the game that were done properly are first class and help get over those parts that are not. It's also nice to have a game unafraid of political commentary, the attitude may not be deep but at least it's there and feels genuine enough. Also didn't really expect to revisit Assassin's Creed Syndicate in this one, a fairly long segment from Ubisoft's another franchise felt goofy.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

Coromon - 8.5/10
This is a really solid creature collector game, similar to Pokemon. None of the Coromon feel particularly weak. There are some nice QoL changes like how you can level up Coromon that aren't in battles to allow you to grind one quickly. You can try new moves you unlock and quickly switch it out if you don't like it. Sometimes you'll fight multiple Coromon but the game will scale them down several levels so they don't feel overpowered. There's a lot of small but welcome changes from what you'd be used to in Pokemon.

A big difference within the story is that instead of collecting badges by defeating gym leaders, you fight legendary Coromon. These are Coromon you cannot catch. They have about 10x the health similar leveled Coromon have but their attacks will be just the same. Most of them have some kind of gimmick as well that typically triggers when you get them to half HP to throw you off. If you have trouble, just abuse items on the stronger Coromon against that type legendary or grind. Don't worry, there's also XP boosters to grind faster.

The world has some beautiful pixel art. A lot of the Coromon have some cool designs and the attack animations on the stronger attacks are really fun to watch too. If you're looking for a Pokemon-like game but don't have a Nintendo system, this is definitely for you. Even if you have a Nintendo system, I still think this is worth your time. It took me about 25 hours to complete it. I enjoyed it all the way through, definitely recommend it if you want to play something like Pokemon.

 

[Osprey]

I finished DOOM (2016) the other day and didn't like it. If it had been called anything else, I might not have minded as much, but it didn't really feel like DOOM to this veteran of 30 years.

This game has all of the same monsters and weapons as DOOM II, but the gameplay felt different. I'm not sure who thought that it was a good idea to add lots and lots of platforming to DOOM. I've read that there's even more verticality in DOOM Eternal. Wonderful. Also, I'm not a fan of the "glory kill" system, which is just QTEs in disguise, and I hate QTEs. I couldn't completely ignore the system, though, because I sometimes needed to perform glory kills for the health that they drop. Another thing that I hate is spawning enemies and this game uses them everywhere. In fact, I'd say that the vast majority of enemies spawn in, but there are never more than around 6 enemies at a time, so, when you kill one, another spawns in to take its place. I found that more exhausting than satisfying. I want to walk into an area with 15 enemies and know that it's cleared once I kill 15. DOOM I & II occasionally had spawning enemies, but not to this degree and there were times when there were more than 6 enemies at once, especially in DOOM II. Perhaps to compensate, many of the enemies are stronger than their equivalents in DOOM II, or you could just say that the weapons are underpowered. The super shotgun, for example, can take down a pinky in DOOM II with a single point-blank shot, but at least five are required to take one down in this iteration.

As for the levels, they're rather monotonous and repetitive. Whether you're on Mars or in Hell, the color palette is mostly red, and the gameplay is just enter area, get ambushed by spawning enemies, clear the area to unlock the next, and repeat. It makes the game feel slow and restrictive. Speaking of which, the movement speed felt a little slow. I often pressed Shift to try to go faster, only to remember that it makes me walk, which is useless in this game. The game's run speed should've been the walk speed and it should've been possible to go faster. There are also no manual saves, only a checkpoint system. This is really unforgivable in a "DOOM" game, IMO. Another annoyance for me was needing to wait for scripted story sequences to end before I could get back to killing. That's normal in order to have a story, but a story isn't something that people look for in a DOOM game.

Anyways, this was more of a rant than a review. The game has a 95% score on Steam and has received overwhelming praise, so I'm certainly in the minority here. I imagine that those of us who have been playing DOOM I & II for 30 years are also in the minority, though, and even many of those might not be as picky as me. To be clear, it's not a bad game, by any means, and is a pretty decent modern shooter. It just didn't satisfy me as a "DOOM" game.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

Shame, I really liked Doom. If you didn't like Doom 2016, don't even bother with Doom Eternal. Doom Eternal got some mixed reviews even from people who liked Doom 2016. You certainly won't like it.

 

[pistolpete11]

The Last of Us, Part 1 & 2
I recently got a PS5 and the first two games I played were TLOU Pt. 1 & 2. There's so much to say about both of these games and the experience in general but overall I was super impressed from start to finish. The Playstation 5 as a whole has been amazing and at least initially this system feels like it was made for gamers who love playing videogames. I could write a huge post about both of these games and the experience of playing them back to back so I'll try to keep it sort of brief (yeah right).

To start I have to say how much I enjoyed the gameplay-loop for both Parts. They're both very similar of course but Pt 2 added some nice improvements and they stuck the landing very well. This is my first foray into PS5 gaming so I'm not sure if most of their hit games are like this but the degree of "interactive-movie" TLOU gives was awesome as well. The cutscenes and character depth were so detailed and executed so proficiently. This was different level of gaming experience that I honestly didn't know was possible. I ended up being really invested in Joel & Ellie, as well as Abby albeit a little reluctantly. Both of these games hit some absolutely awesome character moments and the story told was overall something I truly enjoyed. Graphically, both of these games are beautiful as well. I'm happy they remastered them because it felt like playing two brand new games.

I played on "Moderate" difficulty for both of these games and plan on re-playing Pt. 1 on "Hard" as I've been told it's done really well. "Survivor" sounds like a total slog so maybe i'll get to that at some point but probably not. Looting and crafting seemed to actually matter and the balance of finding useful items was spot on for a first playthrough. It was important to me to find alcohol and I was happy to find screws to upgrade my weapons. The upgrade trees were simple enough and relevant to my playthrough. The value of a bullet and the scarcity of resources determining how you engage a situation was done so well I don't think I can think of a better example in gaming that I've come across. If I was heavy on resources I could be more Rambo, if I was running low I could be more Splinter Cell.

As far as the controversies in Pt. 2 go...

Not only do I think what happened with Joel was completely necessary, it was also completely brilliant. It was hard to watch and was a total gut punch but I don't recall many if any other moments in entertainment where a main character is so drastically and strategically removed from the story. It made complete sense I appreciated ND's efforts to humble the player's actions in Pt. 1 and show the damage it would actually cause. It was a humanizing decision and I loved it. With that said, while it made sense that Joel got what was coming to him, Pt. 2 does make a fatal mistake IMHO and tried too hard to make you sympathize with the other side.

They weren't the good guys. Fundamentally the were in the wrong for being willing to kill an innocent girl against her's and Joel's wishes. So I spent a lot of the game not caring much at all about their group's plights or the in's and out's of their organization. Creatively I thought it was a cool attempt to show the other side and how things are not as simple as good guys vs. bad guys but ultimately these were the people who beat Joel to death with a golf club and wanted to sacrifice Ellie without her knowledge or consent, and now I'm playing fetch with one of their dogs. It didn't resonate as well as Naughty Dog hoped but I feel like it was a cool try at the very least.

There were also some bad pacing issues in Pt. 2 that were distracting. Right as Ellie's story is reaching it's climax, things come all the way back down and we go at a snail's pace to play Abby's entire story. It made the game feel prolonged and I spent a lot of it wondering how close to the finish I was, only to play for a long time as this new character. Narratively the pacing was a distraction but I have to be honest, Abby's missions were some of the best of the two games and I really liked how ND made these two characters just different enough while not making one better than the other. I don't think I'll replay Pt.2 again any time soon whereas I'm probably replaying Pt. 1 immediately and I think the narrative decisions and pacing are the clear factors for that.

Being upset over Ellie's gay romance was absurd and maybe a lot has changed the last 5-6 years since the trailer first came out but people need to realize, if nothing else, that there are a lot of non-hetero gamers out there and they need some representation too. It didn't hurt anyone and the degree of complaining about it was a total waste of everyone's time. Abby, had they not made her so cartoonishly-muscly would have gone a long way in making her more likeable and sympathetic. Playing these two games has made me so apathetic to gaming reviews and internet discussions. If people were seamingly THAT upset over these things then I have less in common with people than I thought and going forward I'll just play games I think are cool.

OK! Long winded rant is over. The Last of Us Pt. 1 & 2, GREAT experience.

PLAYSTATION 5 REVIEWS:

TLOU Pt. 1 = 9.5/10
TLOU Pt. 2 = 8.5/10

Pt. 2 would have been so much better if they just chopped off the last like 5hr or so of the game. The story felt like it came to a conclusion and then there's a whole nother storyline that then doesn't really go anywhere. Really dragged by the end.

I agree that the controversies around Pt. 2 are really stupid and the pacing sucked.

I disagree with the other group necessarily being the bad guys, though. Of course killing Ellie would not be great, but it's to potentially save all of mankind. It's the old trolley problem from psych class. Is it better to let 5 people die or to intervene and kill only 1 person? I think most people, including Joel's character, would say to save the 5. I mean, how many innocent people did Joel kill getting Ellie to the Fireflies let alone how many people could have been saved by sacrificing Ellie? But it changes the calculus when the 1 person is someone you know and love. Joel made a decision and it's completely understandable.

There's also the moral question of did Joel take something away from Ellie by lying to her about the Fireflies? I think it's pretty heavily implied, if not outright stated in Pt. 2, that Ellie would have sacrificed herself if he let her make the decision.

I don't think there's really a right answer. You can see from everybody's perspective why they did what they did which is a sign of good writing IMO... even if I didn't always agree with the finer details.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Pt. 2 would have been so much better if they just chopped off the last like 5hr or so of the game. The story felt like it came to a conclusion and then there's a whole nother storyline that then doesn't really go anywhere. Really dragged by the end.

I agree that the controversies around Pt. 2 are really stupid and the pacing sucked.

I disagree with the other group necessarily being the bad guys, though. Of course killing Ellie would not be great, but it's to potentially save all of mankind. It's the old trolley problem from psych class. Is it better to let 5 people die or to intervene and kill only 1 person? I think most people, including Joel's character, would say to save the 5. I mean, how many innocent people did Joel kill getting Ellie to the Fireflies let alone how many people could have been saved by sacrificing Ellie? But it changes the calculus when the 1 person is someone you know and love. Joel made a decision and it's completely understandable.

There's also the moral question of did Joel take something away from Ellie by lying to her about the Fireflies? I think it's pretty heavily implied, if not outright stated in Pt. 2, that Ellie would have sacrificed herself if he let her make the decision.

I don't think there's really a right answer. You can see from everybody's perspective why they did what they did which is a sign of good writing IMO... even if I didn't always agree with the finer details.

There's some moral gray area there for sure but Ellie was unconscious and in no way made that decision to die for the greater good. She was a sacrificial lamb and had no idea. Other people made that decision for her and IMHO that's wrong. Had it been Abby who was immune and she volunteered herself for the procedure, sure. Had Ellie herself known and made the decision herself to sacrifice her life for the greater good, definitely.

As it stands though this group is a shoot first, ask questions later, organization of renegades who only care about themselves. Marlene became aware of Ellie's immunity and decided to send her off, Marlene also broke Ellie's mother's promise to keep her safe. Marlene and the Fireflies made this decision, not Ellie. It isn't their decision to make and they certainly don't have enough moral highground to get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[pistolpete11]

There's some moral gray area there for sure but Ellie was unconscious and in no way made that decision to die for the greater good. She was a sacrificial lamb and had no idea. Other people made that decision for her and IMHO that's wrong. Had it been Abby who was immune and she volunteered herself for the procedure, sure. Had Ellie herself known and made the decision herself to sacrifice her life for the greater good, definitely.

As it stands though this group is a shoot first, ask questions later, organization of renegades who only care about themselves. Marlene became aware of Ellie's immunity and decided to send her off, Marlene also broke Ellie's mother's promise to keep her safe. Marlene and the Fireflies made this decision, not Ellie. It isn't their decision to make and they certainly don't have enough moral highground to get the benefit of the doubt.

Sure, but that's the entire world and I think that's the point. There are no 'good guys' or 'bad guys'.

Everybody, or nearly everybody (it's been a while since I played either), you come across is only looking out for themselves. From the cannibals who are certainly the worst of the bunch, but it's wrapped up in "we're trying to feed our people to survive" to Henry and Sam who are super nice but leave Joel for dead to protect themselves to Joel and Ellie who kill how many people throughout the game (let alone the nasty stuff that Joel did during the time jump that was alluded to) to the Fireflies.

It's shades of gray, but everybody is a little bit good and a little bit evil. They all have their justifications that on some level are completely understandable, but it's mostly for selfish reasons.

Not saying you're wrong about them making the decision for Ellie being immoral, but the other side of that coin is that Joel made the decision for Ellie, too. Again, it's pretty heavily implied if not out right stated that Ellie would have sacrificed herself if given the choice and Joel knows it. That's why he has to lie to her about what happened because he knows she would have gone back. He selfishly wants to protect her, though.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Sure, but that's the entire world and I think that's the point. There are no 'good guys' or 'bad guys'.

Everybody, or nearly everybody (it's been a while since I played either), you come across is only looking out for themselves. From the cannibals who are certainly the worst of the bunch, but it's wrapped up in "we're trying to feed our people to survive" to Henry and Sam who are super nice but leave Joel for dead to protect themselves to Joel and Ellie who kill how many people throughout the game (let alone the nasty stuff that Joel did during the time jump that was alluded to) to the Fireflies.

It's shades of gray, but everybody is a little bit good and a little bit evil. They all have their justifications that on some level are completely understandable, but it's mostly for selfish reasons.

Not saying you're wrong about them making the decision for Ellie being immoral, but the other side of that coin is that Joel made the decision for Ellie, too. Again, it's pretty heavily implied if not out right stated that Ellie would have sacrificed herself if given the choice and Joel knows it. That's why he has to lie to her about what happened because he knows she would have gone back. He selfishly wants to protect her, though.

Therein lies the problem with the narrative's attempt to frame good and evil as a matter of perspective. Instead of it being interesting, the line between the two was arbitrary. Ellie kills a ton of people, Abby kills a ton of people...even her own people the moment her priorities shift towards protecting Lev. Everyone is a murdering, psychotic, monster.

It's one thing to have Abby kill Joel, I get that completely and like I said found that to be a powerful moment in the game that carries Ellie's story throughout. Humanizing Abby and her group however, falls so flat. At the end of the day it's a videogame and we've all agreed we're going to shoot and kill hundreds of people. Now all of a sudden it's a huge moral conundrum we're meant to grapple with just because Naughty Dog says we have to. The problem with that is this story starts out with Joel and Ellie, characters we grow to care about deeply and as the two of them strengthen their bond, we as the player does too. They're the main characters. I don't care about the perspective of the girl who bashed Joel's head in, at least not enough for 15 hours of gameplay.

In Halo 2 you play as the Arbiter and it was awesome. You get to see the damage the original main character (Master Chief) did to the Covenant and to the Arbiter from his perspective. This narrative decision works because ultimately Arbiter's goals are aligned with the original main character's. That story would've been way different had you stomped out a platoon of marines and squashed Sgt. Johnson's head in the first mission.

Abby gets humanized a little bit, nowhere near as effectively as Ellie did, but ultimately Abby's goals aren't in line with Ellie or Joel so her character development and story didn't resonate with me whatsoever.

 

[PeteWorrell]

Many moments in part 2 fall flat because they try to guilt the player for being a butcher when there are no alternatives. Like making you sympathize with a dog on one side and then forcing you to kill that same dog in a QTE sequence on the other side otherwise you can't move on with the game.

If you are going to try to guilt me as a player because of my actions, then give me choices on how to proceed like in Dishonored with the high chaos/low chaos paths.

 

[pistolpete11]

Therein lies the problem with the narrative's attempt to frame good and evil as a matter of perspective. Instead of it being interesting, the line between the two was arbitrary. Ellie kills a ton of people, Abby kills a ton of people...even her own people the moment her priorities shift towards protecting Lev. Everyone is a murdering, psychotic, monster.

It's one thing to have Abby kill Joel, I get that completely and like I said found that to be a powerful moment in the game that carries Ellie's story throughout. Humanizing Abby and her group however, falls so flat. At the end of the day it's a videogame and we've all agreed we're going to shoot and kill hundreds of people. Now all of a sudden it's a huge moral conundrum we're meant to grapple with just because Naughty Dog says we have to. The problem with that is this story starts out with Joel and Ellie, characters we grow to care about deeply and as the two of them strengthen their bond, we as the player does too. They're the main characters. I don't care about the perspective of the girl who bashed Joel's head in, at least not enough for 15 hours of gameplay.

In Halo 2 you play as the Arbiter and it was awesome. You get to see the damage the original main character (Master Chief) did to the Covenant and to the Arbiter from his perspective. This narrative decision works because ultimately Arbiter's goals are aligned with the original main character's. That story would've been way different had you stomped out a platoon of marines and squashed Sgt. Johnson's head in the first mission.

Abby gets humanized a little bit, nowhere near as effectively as Ellie did, but ultimately Abby's goals aren't in line with Ellie or Joel so her character development and story didn't resonate with me whatsoever.

That's the whole point. The line between good and evil is often times arbitrary or blurry or a matter of perspective. Having conflicting goals is a big part of that.

I think there are plenty of faults with Abby's story (or Pt. 2 in general) and/or how they went about telling it. I'm not disputing that. The majority of my posts have been about Pt. 1 anyway. The part I objected to was calling the Fireflies the bad guys. Boiling it down to that (or the opposite, I've seen people argue that Joel's actually the bad guy) is too simplistic and missing the point of the story.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Police Simulator : Patrol Officers
Developed by Aesir Interactive and published by Astragon, who are known for publishing many simulator games in the last decade or so. Fun little sim game to pass the time. My wife thinks it's hilarious that I play this, but someone's gotta keep these streets safe.

As the name implies you control a police officer, starting as a foot patrol officer writing parking tickets and eventually working your way up to more intense crimes. Completing lawful acts like writing justified tickets and making proper arrests earns you shift points, while doing wrong things like mistreating citizens makes you lose points.

A bit buggy at times, but pretty manageable. Once you learn how some of the in-game systems work with each other it's fairly smooth. There are quite a lot of controls and menus that can be cumbersome at times, but it sort of has to be that way.

 

[Unholy Diver]

View attachment 895441
Police Simulator : Patrol Officers
Developed by Aesir Interactive and published by Astragon, who are known for publishing many simulator games in the last decade or so. Fun little sim game to pass the time. My wife thinks it's hilarious that I play this, but someone's gotta keep these streets safe.

As the name implies you control a police officer, starting as a foot patrol officer writing parking tickets and eventually working your way up to more intense crimes. Completing lawful acts like writing justified tickets and making proper arrests earns you shift points, while doing wrong things like mistreating citizens makes you lose points.

A bit buggy at times, but pretty manageable. Once you learn how some of the in-game systems work with each other it's fairly smooth. There are quite a lot of controls and menus that can be cumbersome at times, but it sort of has to be that way.

Does it end with you getting gunned down by some thugs when you are three days from retirement?

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Does it end with you getting gunned down by some thugs when you are three days from retirement?

hahahaha whoops I didn't realize this was the "Games you've beat" thread, as opposed to the "games you're playing" thread.

I assume I'll get the bad ending where I "resign" and get hired by a neighboring precinct until I lose my qualified immunity and certification.

 

[Unholy Diver]

hahahaha whoops I didn't realize this was the "Games you've beat" thread, as opposed to the "games you're playing" thread.

I assume I'll get the bad ending where I "resign" and get hired by a neighboring precinct until I lose my qualified immunity and certification.

Resign in shame and take a job as a security guard at the local supermarket

 

[Jovavic]

This is the Police is an underrated game

 

[Ceremony]

​

Metro Exodus (PS4, 2019)

I have always enjoyed dystopian and post-apocalyptic fiction. Whether film, book or video game, seeing how people imagine the world might turn out if catastrophic things were to happen is something I just find interesting. As I get older I realise these works aren't solely about the creator's vision of the future, they exist to challenge the viewer/reader/player. How would I react in a world like this? How would I cope? Could I cope? Could this vision of the future actually come to pass, developing from the society I live in now?

Metro Exodus is the third game in the series about the civilisation that grew in the Moscow subway system after a global nuclear war. I can't imagine what it would be like living in a Russian tunnel, but I can just picture pitched battles between Govan and West Street in the Glasgow Subway. The problem there being of course that there's only one line and it's a big circle, so being able to escape anyone in there would probably be quite difficult.

As with the previous Metro games, Exodus is the story of Artyom and his friends. His wife Anna, her dad and a bunch of his army pals. In one of his visits to the surface Artyom and Anna discover trains running on the surface. Stuff happens and the gang end up forced to hijack one of them and set off on a trip across Russia looking for a place to live.

While I was playing Exodus I spent some time thinking about whether or not I was enjoying it. I went back to my write-ups of 2033 and Last Light because I remembered liking 2033 a lot while finding Last Light a disappointment. I went back to them to see how much of the games I actually remembered because it was a few years ago and 21st century media has destroyed my brain to the point I don't remember anything. But I knew I liked something, and I knew the general reasons why. I think the best way to cover Exodus is to simply list the major parts of the game in order, because the sentiment I have towards them is going to be consistent.

Gameplay is the same mixture of optional stealth and FPS the original games were. Only since this game was released in 2019 guess what else it has? A crafting system! Find bottles and ball bearings in the wilderness and achieve anything - make ammo, medkits, fix your mask, you name it. Changing the difficulty changes the prevalence of resources, but my first playthrough was on the second highest setting and I had no trouble finding enough bullets and parts to keep me going.

What else can resources add to the gameplay experience? Dirty weapons! Yes, if you move around with your gun out rather than holstered (a superficial decision which doesn't actually do anything) it'll get dirtier sooner and be more likely to jam. Weapons usually jam when you try to fire them so you'll only realise this when confronted by enemies, so this gets irritating quite quickly. As before there are a range of weapons and customisation options you can find throughout the game, but the assault rifle/silenced shotgun combo remains the best option.

Since Artyom and the gang have escaped the tunnels and are roaming the countryside, Exodus offers a new twist to the series - open world areas. There are three main ones you visit over the course of the game. One on a river, one in a desert and one in a forest. It's like the developers had actually been trapped in tunnels themselves and wanted to be as varied as possible. There are story-advancing sections for you to go to in these areas, along with other points of interest you're free to visit or not.

That development joy at reaching the surface seems to have been shortlived however because the open maps themselves are deeply unpleasant to spend any time in. Not in a ravaged by nuclear winter kind of way, but in an oh god how could you have thought this was a good idea kind of way. The river level, as you might expect, has a lot of water. So you can travel parts of it by rowboat. Only they seem to have tried to make it handle realistically, so it's slow, tedious and impossible to steer. You'll often get stopped by shrimps jumping out of the water on to your boat. They take a surprising amount of ammo to deal with, considering they're exposing their fleshy underbelly to you in the process.

In the desert area you get a car to drive around in. It might be the worst experience I've ever had of driving a vehicle in a game. It's less intuitive to drive here than in Borderlands. There are rough paths for you to drive on and you'll have to, because if you go off them you'll drive off a cliff or get stuck on a rock. There isn't a minimap so you have to press a button to bring up the map, try to figure out which direction you should go in, then put the map down. Only there seems to be a glitch which t-poses your character here, because sometimes the camera moves up your arms disappear and one time I did this I got grabbed out of the air by one of the flying mutated creatures.

The forest area actually isn't open at all, you're sneaking through it on a completely linear path while a bunch of people are hunting you. It also, much like the rest of the game, isn't very colourful or vibrant.

While I didn't remember much detail about the first Metro games, I did remember the atmosphere. A game set in a location like a war-torn underground tunnel system is about as easy as it gets to get the setting right. It works because it's so constrained. Exodus gets to the surface and sort of sprawls everywhere and loses its focus. There are antagonists in charge of these areas but there's very little actual interaction with them. There's even less characterisation, but I'll come to that later. The biggest strength of the Metro series was its location, and in moving on from that Exodus fails to create anywhere near the same kind of memorable experience. Rather than feeling part of a world the game just feels like a sightseeing tour.

The best example of this is on an almost completely linear section near the end. You're on one of those boats again, going down a corridor that's got so much glowing green stuff in it you have to put your mask on or you'll die. Halfway down this corridor there's a door on the left. You stop, wondering if it's worth exploring because you do actually need the resources that might be there. You think you can hear the sound of a monstrous shriek in the distance. You go in, find a bunch of lockers and ammo at the end of the path you take and then there's a much louder noise. You sprint out to the boat, get in and frantically press square trying to get in before rowing off as the noises howl after you, reverberating off the walls. This was good. It was completely standard survival horror game stuff, but it was about the only part of the game that could actually be described as such and one of the few times I felt engaged.

Ironically, the game finishes in city street-level section which the characters even remark is like Moscow. The first time I got to that section I actually felt involved in what was going on, even though it was entirely linear. It was a good metaphor to end the game with.

Combat is against the usual mixture of humans and mutated creatures. Humans are pretty standardised, but I need to spend some time talking about the mutants. These pop up in various places, indoors and out. They're given various names, with "fuglies" being the eventual most common one. You go into a room or are moving across one of the open maps and suddenly there are four hunched, beige coloured things doing the standard tortured zombie moan. They all move in the exact same crude animation pattern. They can all take a surprising amount of damage from your guns despite being mutants who must subside on little besides each other, or bugs. My first encounter fending off a pack of these things was when I first realised Exodus might not be any good because the whole experience was so laughable. They were so badly animated, making such a stupid noise and being so irritatingly simple yet spongey they just felt like a badly implemented enemy in a PS2 shovelware game. If you leave them alive long enough they'll throw rocks at you.

You can argue that there are different ways to tackle different enemies and it's up to the player to experiment and find this out. Fire takes out these mutants easily, so molotovs and explosive ammo are key. But even then, the frequency with which these things appear renders the whole thing moot. There are hundreds of the f***ing things. The level where you go to an underground station and just shoot cannibals is less gratuitous than these mutants.

While the gameplay hasn't changed much, on a technical level the game is often infuriating. Almost any hits from enemies will damage your gas mask if you're wearing it, so if you're in a radiated area you're probably going to die. Only as it turns out I looked it up and if you press the "wipe visor" button Artyom magics up a piece of duct tape to cover a hole in the glass. This technically falls under gameplay rather than technical since this is presumably intended, but the game does such a terrible job of communicating to the player what's expected of them that I need to include it as a fundamental failure of its creation.

Movement is a chore, with Artyom being able to sprint for about five yards at a time. You'll need to dodge vegetation too, he'll get slowed down by random bushes you don't even notice as you walk through them. Every now and then you'll get stuck on an object like the top of a staircase moving on to a new floor. In a game which encourages stealth, this is quite unhelpful. In a few places the sound would cut out. On a graphical level, for a game six years deep into a generation on a PS4 Pro, it's unremarkable. I don't think it looks any different to the previous games. People and landscapes are equally ordinary. This didn't stop my console from turning into a jet engine frequently, and I don't know what all the racket is for.

Characterisation is arguably the game's biggest weakness. Artyom is a silent protagonist. Except from loading screens, there he never shuts up. I told you there were other characters so I'm going to have an experiment right now. I played this game through three and a half times. I played both DLC episodes. I finished with it less than a week ago. I'm going to list the characters and how much I remember of them.

Artyom: You
Anna: Your wife. Russian accent occasionally drifts and becomes American. Suddenly develops a cough early in the game. I wonder what that might mean!
Colonel Miller: Her dad. I don't know why he's called Miller, he has a Russian name too. Has metal legs. I don't know why.
Duke: A guy.
Damir: A guy who looks a bit Asiatic and empathises with the slaves in the Caspian level.
Sam: An American with a top knot.
Alyosha: A guy.
Tokarev: A guy with guns.
Katya and Nastya: A woman and her daughter you rescue from the river. I didn't realise Nastya was a girl until we were leaving.
Idiot: Named by a big Dostoyevsky fan.

In between the actual gameplay levels the game has little interludes on the train showing you how much the gang all like each other and get on. Here it turns out Artyom is the group diarist and there are reams of pages he's written about everything they encounter - characters, weapons, enemies, the story, the lot. You have to sit down and read these if you want to know anything since the game does such a terrible job of making the player - either new or returning to the series - aware of any of it.

I'm reminded of the Zero Punctuation review of Final Fantasy XIII here, which had a similar approach to telling the player anything. "I only have a vague idea of what's going on because I made myself read all that ancillary text log bullshit. This is not good story telling! You're supposed to weave exposition into the narrative, not hand the audience a f***ing glossary!"

Why do I not know more about these people, you wonder? Am I not paying attention? Is the game bad? No, I had another epiphany about halfway through. Although I didn't write about it, I spent the best part of two years playing and platinuming Red Dead Redemption 2. Despite spending around 250 hours with the game I could not honestly say I enjoyed any part of it. One of my biggest problems with the story and characterisation was the contrast between gameplay and actual character interactions. You'd go off on an adventure on your own, the fate of all your friends entirely dependent on your actions, then you'd come back and everyone would be talking with and around you as if you were all familiar with one another.

Exodus does the same thing. Whenever you go off into the wilderness and kill some mutants or bandits you'll come back and be met with this cast of clowns (who all look exactly the same - grey, brown, shaven heads and ludicrously proportioned) all congratulating you like you're best mates. To me this is an absolute failure of writing, characters, narrative, use whatever words you want but pretty much every part of it doesn't work. I'm not invested in any of these people, so I don't care if they treat me like a lifelong friend when they pop up from time to time.

The first two Metro games - 2033 moreso - contained the only functioning, logical moral choice system I've experienced in games. Where your incidental and considered actions ultimately affect the way the story goes, and how other characters react to what you do. In 2033 this was implemented naturally. In Last Light it was clunkier, but still logical. In Exodus it's just sort of there. Any bad choice you might make is gratuitous and often more work than the good option. Killing enemies rather than using stealth, for instance.

What really annoys me though is your friends talk about effectively following your example. This is fine, but there are huge stretches of the game where they can't possibly know what you're doing. It's possible this could be the point, morality is what we do when nobody's watching, that sort of thing. It's also a bit odd that the moral choices fall completely on the player, since Artyom doesn't actually react or interact with anyone since he's mute. But with no way of interacting with anyone and no real consequence to anything you do, it's hard to be invested in this the way I was in previous games. That I definitely remember. The choices here are badly tied up in the ending in a way that doesn't really fit. The bad ending is so ludicrously dark that it feels like it comes from a different game, while the good ending is like comically over the top Soviet propaganda. Neither ending feels like the result of any of the choices you've made, so the ultimate fate of the moral choice system is left meaningless.

There are three DLC additions. The Two Colonels is a short post-script to the last area you visit in the main game. It's fine. Sam's Story is about the American in your group which makes up for the poor moral choice stuff earlier, finishing with the option between blowing up a nuclear submarine or hitching a ride on it to go back to California. In the third game of a series about nuclear war, how obvious does it have to be that a random guy roaming the seas with a nuke is a bad idea?

The New Game Plus option lets you play the game with more variety if you're a complete masochist. One nice feature is a few gameplay modifiers like tougher enemies, a realistic day/night cycle, permadeath. These are interesting and things that people who like the game would actually appreciate, so that's a good thing.

When it was released, Exodus averaged review scores in the 8/10 range. This, to me, seems like a good score. I don't understand why. Since playing and finishing it I've had youtube suggestions with titles like WHY METRO EXODUS IS SO GOOD. I realised when I went back to my 2033 review that things which I praised there annoyed me here - tiny details like your watch having a visibility indicator, that thing with wiping the gas mask, stuff like that. I liked the immersion. Here, I found it irritating from the start. Have I changed? My overwhelming sensation for all of Exodus - as I dealt with the clunky gameplay, the ordinary graphics, the non-existent characterisation - was that I simply wasn't having fun. I was not enjoying what I was doing. I didn't appreciate the moral, thematic or stylistic choices presented to me. I didn't want to spend any more time with the game, or discover what else it had in store for me.

Despite being certain I didn't like any of it, I don't know if Metro Exodus is any good or not. I'm inclined to think it isn't. What I do know is that it's made me wonder if I actually enjoy playing video games any more. Is it me, or have the games changed? Are there still things I can play where I just have fun? Have I finished everything I might enjoy?

 

[Jovavic]

Trails From Zero - 8/10

My first real go in The Legend of Heroes series goes well, but it's definitely a game that was made over a decade ago. Characters and story are top notch. I watched a six hour retelling of the three Trails in the Sky series to help out with some of characters that pop up and what they're talking about. On to it's sequel, Trails to Azure!

 

[Frankie Spankie]

Horizon Zero Dawn - 8.5/10
This was a really enjoyable game from beginning to end. I got this game because I recently got an HDR monitor and I wanted to test it out and it certainly is gorgeous. I think the character models leave a little to be desired but the robots and worlds look great.

The combat is really fun. I personally enjoyed the stealth approach even though the stealth mechanics are very basic in the game. It was fun diving towards tall grass, luring prey, and killing them quickly. Even when it was an enemy too big to one shot, it opened up a window where you could deal some big damage. There's melee and ranged attacks although you'll primarily be performing range attacks with your bow which is really fun. There are also some traps to use as well.

The story is also really interesting. It felt fresh to be in a world that felt like a tribal setting for humans but had killer machines roam the earth. I wanted to learn what caused this and the journey to find out why the world because the way it did and Aloy's path to find out about her own history was a lot better than I thought it would be.

I'm not too keen on open world games and I didn't think this one did it particularly better/worse than others. The issues I have with the open world setting still hold true here but I won't go into too much detail since that's more of a setting choice for me vs game flaws.

My one main complaint about the game is the fact that the game wants to be like an RPG and give you gear options between armor and weapons. The problem is that it feels like such an after thought because you don't actually unlock anything. As far as I can tell, you buy all your gear from merchants. I honestly forgot there even was gear until half way through when I started to realize fights were taking a long time against bigger machines. Then the fights started feeling more tedious than challenging. You could scan machines for what their weaknesses are and I never even got any weapons for two of the weaknesses. If the game is going to force you into a system of elemental strengths/weaknesses, they have to present it better and give you one of everything as you progress through the story.

I was a bit hesitant to try this one because just about every other hyped up Playstation game that finally got ported to Steam left me disappointed. Horizon Zero Dawn was not that case. It made me want to keep trying more Playstation games. I think there's still some flaws and not as perfect as others make it out to be but it's still a really good game nevertheless.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Horizon Zero Dawn - 8.5/10
This was a really enjoyable game from beginning to end. I got this game because I recently got an HDR monitor and I wanted to test it out and it certainly is gorgeous. I think the character models leave a little to be desired but the robots and worlds look great.

The combat is really fun. I personally enjoyed the stealth approach even though the stealth mechanics are very basic in the game. It was fun diving towards tall grass, luring prey, and killing them quickly. Even when it was an enemy too big to one shot, it opened up a window where you could deal some big damage. There's melee and ranged attacks although you'll primarily be performing range attacks with your bow which is really fun. There are also some traps to use as well.

The story is also really interesting. It felt fresh to be in a world that felt like a tribal setting for humans but had killer machines roam the earth. I wanted to learn what caused this and the journey to find out why the world because the way it did and Aloy's path to find out about her own history was a lot better than I thought it would be.

I'm not too keen on open world games and I didn't think this one did it particularly better/worse than others. The issues I have with the open world setting still hold true here but I won't go into too much detail since that's more of a setting choice for me vs game flaws.

My one main complaint about the game is the fact that the game wants to be like an RPG and give you gear options between armor and weapons. The problem is that it feels like such an after thought because you don't actually unlock anything. As far as I can tell, you buy all your gear from merchants. I honestly forgot there even was gear until half way through when I started to realize fights were taking a long time against bigger machines. Then the fights started feeling more tedious than challenging. You could scan machines for what their weaknesses are and I never even got any weapons for two of the weaknesses. If the game is going to force you into a system of elemental strengths/weaknesses, they have to present it better and give you one of everything as you progress through the story.

I was a bit hesitant to try this one because just about every other hyped up Playstation game that finally got ported to Steam left me disappointed. Horizon Zero Dawn was not that case. It made me want to keep trying more Playstation games. I think there's still some flaws and not as perfect as others make it out to be but it's still a really good game nevertheless.

I've been looking forward to this one for my PS5 runthrough. I'm playing Spiderman currently after finishing TLOU 1 & 2. I started Ghosts of Tsushima as well and i'll definitely finish it but both Spiderman and GoT are very checklist orientated. Unlock this area, unlock these side quests, do main story quest, rinse and repeat.

I'm assuming HZD is much of the same. It's not the worst thing as long as the aesthetic and world is fun enough, it just gets a little repetitive. Aloy can climb in this game though right? I heard it was a similar system to BOTW.

 

[Osprey]

I've been looking forward to this one for my PS5 runthrough. I'm playing Spiderman currently after finishing TLOU 1 & 2. I started Ghosts of Tsushima as well and i'll definitely finish it but both Spiderman and GoT are very checklist orientated. Unlock this area, unlock these side quests, do main story quest, rinse and repeat.

I'm assuming HZD is much of the same. It's not the worst thing as long as the aesthetic and world is fun enough, it just gets a little repetitive. Aloy can climb in this game though right? I heard it was a similar system to BOTW.

I haven't played those other games, but HZD reminded me a lot of Far Cry, at least 3 & 4 (still haven't played the newer ones). It's got very much the same kind of open world, map with markers on it, outposts, quests, resource collection and crafting (ex. farm 5 boar skins to craft a new, larger inventory bag). It didn't feel that repetitive to me, but that's subjective. If Far Cry feels repetitive to you, HZD probably will, as well, but if you happen to enjoy the Far Cry gameplay loop, you'll most likely enjoy HZD, too. In fact, I was just reminded that the protagonist of Far Cry 4 was Ajay and HZD's is Aloy. Coincidence? It sure feels like Far Cry 4 was a major influence on the game. Oh, yeah, Aloy can climb, though it's one of those things where she can climb only where the game allows (and expects) her to.

 

[Unholy Diver]

Infamous: First Light - 7.5/10

Standalone prequel DLC for Infamous Second Son that covers the backstory of Abigail "Fetch" Walker, who you encounter as a reluctant ally in Second Son. Never played it originally as I had moved on from Infamous by the time it released, it was nice to return to the Infamous universe even for the short 5 or so hours it took to play through. Hard to believe it has been 10 years since an Infamous game came out, would be great to see another one

 

[Albatros]

Art of Rally 7/10

A very likeable game that reminds me of old Nintendo or Commodore 64 titles in a good way, looks at times like pop art and that cheerfulness makes it easier to forgive its weaknesses like a lack of depth or at times counterintuitive physics modeling that is ultimately away from the driving experience a bit too much. Great fun for a couple of evenings and leaves an impression for much longer, feels like the makers genuinely wanted to make this game which is not something you can say often enough these days.