Games
Assassins Creed: Odyssey (partial review)
Just about everything I've heard in reviews, I agree with to some degree. For me, that makes it a good game, partly because of its flaws.
Odyssey is expansive and looks good. The controls don't feel revolutionary by any means, but they work well. The sea battles are run to have back, if not quite as cool as Black Flag's. There's a lot to like. The war is more a gameplay convention that lets you weaken and flip regions for rewards, though, than something meaningful.
I can see the arguments about the microtransactions. I have not felt compelled to pay for anything (save a few things that are "bought" with Uplay points you get from just playing Uplay games), but I totally understand how some would feel pushed to do so. Whether you hit a level barrier and how much that bothers you would totally depend on how you play the game. I tackle a lot of side quests and I still hit a few minor bumps, plus one notable one as I followed a chain of quests marked as level 32-ish only to come to a follow-up that warned me "hey, the boss you're about to fight is seven levels higher than you." I appreciated the warning so I could set that aside and do other things, but there's a distinct problem with pacing if you can get into that situation. At the very least, most of the chain should have been flagged higher level instead of getting me invested and only waving me off at the end. So XP boosters would definitely be attractive if I were more dedicated to pursuing the particular bit of story I was following right then.
And that spins off into the other major "flaw" of the game. This one is a touch trickier, though, because it actually works well for me. I don't always mind having a wide game I can sink a lot of hours into without being fully invested in. This is a game I could put down for a few days and pick back up. It's a game I could potentially play on the side for a month or two. But that also means it's not a game that's likely to make a major impact on me. I find the central story interesting, but it's not presented in a way that allows me to follow it straight through, so I couldn't obsess over it if I tried. Sometimes (and presently), I'm fine with that, as it's something I can play "on the side." It does, however, hold it back from actual greatness. The most awesome, impactful games require more focus than is shown here. They can potentially be as long, but being memorable as more than a big expanse requires a more cohesive experience than a few threads of possibly-golden story woven within a tapestry of fetch quests and bandit slaying.
It makes me think about my issue with "anything goes" RPG settings like Amber/LoG&S. When you have such a breadth of setting/story that anything is possible, it becomes very difficult for any of it to matter. Tightening focus makes a compelling story much, much easier. It may seem like restrictions are bad, but in a narrative medium, some are required or you just have a jumble of nonsense.
For me, right now, a broad game without a tight narrative focus is fine and enjoyable. It'll be even better if the core story pays off in the end.
The Conjuring House (an un-review)
I don't play a lot of "horror" games, but some of those that fall below my interest level to pick up I'm still curious enough about to want to see. The Silent Hill series is legendary, though I've never played one. In this day and age, that's what Youtube "let's play" videos are good for. There are a couple users I regularly follow, who provide enough commentary to fill the void in games and narrate the experience without being obnoxious.
When The Conjuring House started out, it seemed like a pretty typical indy horror game - character is trapped in a haunted house and must explore to complete puzzles to get access to artifacts to defeat the evil. That isn't inherently inaccurate, but the game surprised me on several points.
For one, it keeps getting bigger. Most games like this are over in a couple hours, if that. This one was probably closer to seven, but all along the way, completing one objective would open up another huge section of house. "Find five artifacts" turns into finding half a dozen things to get just one. It's actually quite impressive, if perhaps daunting. Through much of the game, there's a huge laundry list of things that need to be found and there's a good bit of backtracking - but it's impressive enough to set the game apart.
The hostile creatures are also used well, with a main one that shows up seemingly at random. I'm sure it's more predictable than the alien in Alien: Isolation, but it creates the illusion of "random" well. The game offers consumable talismans to ward it off and safe rooms to run to, though there's no real fighting it.
Knowing what I know, I probably still wouldn't have wanted to play it myself, but I have to give props, as the game is well above average in the genre.
Just about everything I've heard in reviews, I agree with to some degree. For me, that makes it a good game, partly because of its flaws.
Odyssey is expansive and looks good. The controls don't feel revolutionary by any means, but they work well. The sea battles are run to have back, if not quite as cool as Black Flag's. There's a lot to like. The war is more a gameplay convention that lets you weaken and flip regions for rewards, though, than something meaningful.
I can see the arguments about the microtransactions. I have not felt compelled to pay for anything (save a few things that are "bought" with Uplay points you get from just playing Uplay games), but I totally understand how some would feel pushed to do so. Whether you hit a level barrier and how much that bothers you would totally depend on how you play the game. I tackle a lot of side quests and I still hit a few minor bumps, plus one notable one as I followed a chain of quests marked as level 32-ish only to come to a follow-up that warned me "hey, the boss you're about to fight is seven levels higher than you." I appreciated the warning so I could set that aside and do other things, but there's a distinct problem with pacing if you can get into that situation. At the very least, most of the chain should have been flagged higher level instead of getting me invested and only waving me off at the end. So XP boosters would definitely be attractive if I were more dedicated to pursuing the particular bit of story I was following right then.
And that spins off into the other major "flaw" of the game. This one is a touch trickier, though, because it actually works well for me. I don't always mind having a wide game I can sink a lot of hours into without being fully invested in. This is a game I could put down for a few days and pick back up. It's a game I could potentially play on the side for a month or two. But that also means it's not a game that's likely to make a major impact on me. I find the central story interesting, but it's not presented in a way that allows me to follow it straight through, so I couldn't obsess over it if I tried. Sometimes (and presently), I'm fine with that, as it's something I can play "on the side." It does, however, hold it back from actual greatness. The most awesome, impactful games require more focus than is shown here. They can potentially be as long, but being memorable as more than a big expanse requires a more cohesive experience than a few threads of possibly-golden story woven within a tapestry of fetch quests and bandit slaying.
It makes me think about my issue with "anything goes" RPG settings like Amber/LoG&S. When you have such a breadth of setting/story that anything is possible, it becomes very difficult for any of it to matter. Tightening focus makes a compelling story much, much easier. It may seem like restrictions are bad, but in a narrative medium, some are required or you just have a jumble of nonsense.
For me, right now, a broad game without a tight narrative focus is fine and enjoyable. It'll be even better if the core story pays off in the end.
The Conjuring House (an un-review)
I don't play a lot of "horror" games, but some of those that fall below my interest level to pick up I'm still curious enough about to want to see. The Silent Hill series is legendary, though I've never played one. In this day and age, that's what Youtube "let's play" videos are good for. There are a couple users I regularly follow, who provide enough commentary to fill the void in games and narrate the experience without being obnoxious.
When The Conjuring House started out, it seemed like a pretty typical indy horror game - character is trapped in a haunted house and must explore to complete puzzles to get access to artifacts to defeat the evil. That isn't inherently inaccurate, but the game surprised me on several points.
For one, it keeps getting bigger. Most games like this are over in a couple hours, if that. This one was probably closer to seven, but all along the way, completing one objective would open up another huge section of house. "Find five artifacts" turns into finding half a dozen things to get just one. It's actually quite impressive, if perhaps daunting. Through much of the game, there's a huge laundry list of things that need to be found and there's a good bit of backtracking - but it's impressive enough to set the game apart.
The hostile creatures are also used well, with a main one that shows up seemingly at random. I'm sure it's more predictable than the alien in Alien: Isolation, but it creates the illusion of "random" well. The game offers consumable talismans to ward it off and safe rooms to run to, though there's no real fighting it.
Knowing what I know, I probably still wouldn't have wanted to play it myself, but I have to give props, as the game is well above average in the genre.
Comments
Post a Comment