ShreddieMercury

The farther you get into this game, the more fucking incredible it gets.

I haven't been nearly as bothered by any of what you're describing, but I think you're giving gamers far too much credit. The average gamer isn't nearly on the same level as a CBS viewer, despite how depressing that sounds. And I don't think it's about intelligence as much as it is just patience and general critical thought. I think the mind place stuff exists purely as a cushion for people that are new to Remedy's games or did not play Alan Wake. As frustrating as that is for more seasoned Remedy-heads, I think it makes sense when you consider that it could be a helpful visualization of specific story and plot threads that are admittedly difficult to keep in focus as the story's layers are so fluid and complex. I have found myself going back to it and reading the snippets here and there, and for me it really works as a mechanic, but I completely understand somebody thinking it's obvious and bad. I will say that Alan's plot board has been much more interesting, but I won't spoil why.

Not who you asked, but I read that review and was struck by the lack of self-awareness given the subject matter. I like several of the points the author makes, but it's mostly just over-written drivel. "...There's a conscious parallel between deconstruction and dismemberment as a means to enlightenment. " Uhhh, not sure about that. I'm still relatively early in the game, but at this point I'm actually surprised at how non-divisive the general review scores are. Despite Remedy's insistence that this game stands alone, I'm not seeing it. This is a game specifically for people who have been stewing on what a sequel to Alan Wake would or could be for thirteen years. This includes the developer, since Remedy is very self-consciously drawing a line between their process for bringing about this sequel and Alan's situation in the game. This is also very specifically for people who thought the best parts of the first game were the sections where you walked leisurely and soaked in the atmosphere. At about seven hours in, that means the game is very, very much for me, but I would imagine I don't make up a huge portion of the general gaming audience at this point. Alan Wake II is decidedly not for people who just watched a recap of the first game, or who are coming into Remedy games fresh. The closest comparison to this in my mind would be Twin Peaks The Return; an absolutely incredible experience that is uncompromising in its vision, a middle finger directed at modern television audiences who expect to be catered to. Remedy isn't trolling as hard as David Lynch, but this is a radical work that fully follows the whims of the artists without much thought given to the audience's wishes or expectations. If you're wondering how often this sort of thing happens in big budget video games, the answer is never. I don't have much to criticize in the way of dialog or how the game's written. It's very Remedy/Sam Lake, and you enjoy it warts and all, or you find it sophomoric and off-putting. My main gripe so far would be how nonchalantly Saga reacts to things that are completely insane, even very early in the game. She basically just finds them to be natural bits of her investigation. Perhaps there is a reason for this later, but it strikes me as just clunky characterization. I also find the combat to very punchy and fun, though it's very, very sparse. The mind place and plot board elements are not well introduced in my opinion, but they become much more interesting once you get a few chapters in. For a specific audience, I think this game will hit them in a way that nothing has in a long time. Without even finishing the game, I'm very curious where Remedy goes from here, as this feels like the apotheosis of their entire portfolio. Though I know it's not, if this ended up as their last game, it would be understandable.

One is another open world Sony game. The other is a visually and narratively boundary-pushing multimedia experience. Your choice!

My first impression after playing about an hour last night is extremely positive. The presentation is off the charts, and it's by far the best looking game I've seen on my Series X to date. As a fan of Remedy's games, Alan Wake 2 is already really going places in the intro alone. Only thing to note is a strange audio bug that has cut the sound a couple of times in the intro cutscene, but a restart seemed to fix it. Also, 30fps is completely fine for games like this, so I would go quality mode on console if you're playing it there.

Really appreciate the risks they took with the second game, and it was more refined, so I'd say II. But I have a complicated relationship with these games. The first one essentially cemented the modern Sony template. These games are mostly spectacle, and they really work on me when experienced fresh, but anytime I've tried to replay them I like them less and less. It's roller coaster gaming. I also think the narrative is really well executed in the landscape of video games, but to turn it into a TV show exposes just how rote this story is. Zombie stuff got extremely burned out by the late 2000's, yet here we are, going through the same motions with total sincerity.

Alan Wake is an amazing game. I'm always surprised to see that people think it doesn't hold up or that the gameplay is tedious, which is an opinion that I run into regularly. It doesn't have the deepest third person action, but the feedback is great and it's just as polished as the Max Payne games from a gameplay standpoint. That said, the real reason to play it is the extremely hooky and propulsive story, and the episodic structure is surprisingly still pretty novel in games. Regardless of whatever shortcomings Alan Wake has, the atmosphere and tone are extremely strong. There is a reason that the game is a cult classic, and that Remedy has been so patient and reverent with this follow up.

Game of the year no question. The fact that this exists at all is a miracle, let alone that that they seemingly knocked it out of the park in every respect.

This sounds like my impression of playing Mario Galaxy for the first time, which is my favorite ever game. Mario is video games. Everything else really pales in comparison to experiencing a new mainline Mario release.

Yeah the light gun games are great on the system. I still think it's got the best controller and control scheme of any console. The pointer is genius and wasn't really used to it's full potential outside of Nintendo's first party games. I'd be looking at either model really. I don't have any gamecube stuff (sadly).

Bummer. He's responsible for a handful of my favorite games. I'd wager that he doesn't want to make live service stuff, which it sounds like is where Platinum (and most other developers) are trying to pivot.

I've been thinking about getting another Wii as I still have several games but no system at this point. I could go the eBay route but would rather not if I can get it from somewhere more reliable.

Sounds healthy to me. You could also try older games, which are fun. Most new games are depressing skinner boxes solely designed to eat your life and then make you feel empty.

Uhhh, the UI is totally fine and takes about 30 seconds to understand. You can go into settings and set the console to completely shut off rather than remain in standby when you turn it off, which you will then do by holding the central Xbox button... and selecting shut off... just like the other consoles. You should absolutely do this, as it conserves energy, and the console will still download things in this state. Xbox had an absolutely incredible backwards compatibility program. Tons of amazing games have been enhanced visually, and in some cases have had frame rates boosted/stabilized. If you have an HDR capable television, I would go into settings and enable both HDR10 and Dolby Vision (the latter works and looks better). Most older games have had auto-HDR applied, which offers a significant visual improvement from my experience. The other thing you will notice is quick resume, which keeps games suspended so that you can hop between several at a time with only a few seconds of loading. This is the best feature on any of the current consoles.

Modern games generally haven't been able to reconcile their desire to tell stories with the fact that the player has agency and that the gameplay needs to be fun. The less they try to tell stories, the better video games are in my opinion. I think "interactive entertainment" is actually great branding for Sony, because I don't find what they put out at this point to really fit the definition of a "game".

Agreed. I don't really understand why they haven't perpetually released these games. Is it really time consuming/expensive to just swap assets? Music licensing isn't a problem because it's all (incredible) in-house tracks, so it's just the car models and names at this point. Outrun 2 deserves its own special re-release with all of the content from the various iterations of the game (Xbox original, Outrun2 SP, Coast 2 Coast, etc.). For a collection, my dream would be Sega Rally Championship, Daytona USA 2, and SCUD Race.

Didn't know you were a fan! Have you played with the FXT mod?

Huge news that is amazing and also somehow sucks. Daytona USA 2 is one of the greatest arcade racers ever, and it never received a console port. It is supposedly emulated inside of the new Yakuza game, titled "Sega Racing Classic 2". I know we are not sharing twitter links but it was confirmed this morning. I'll take what I can get, but I'm still waiting on the day that we get enhanced ports of Sega Rally, Outrun 2, and Scud Race. All have licensing issues, but it seems Daytona USA 2 was likely the easiest to navigate since the name is only referenced in the title screen, and the cars are generic.

My favorite definition of art is that it's anything that moves you. But the distinction itself is fairly meaningless. I also find that the more self-consciously artful games try to be, the less effective and interesting they are. I've found myself moving farther and farther away from games that are reaching for prestige. Games like God of War being so self serious is very amusing, and they ring hollow for me. It seems like lots of modern games want to escape what makes them great, which is that they're games and not movies.

I have more limited time for games now with a young daughter, and find myself gravitating towards simpler games and stuff that I can hop quickly in and out of (lots of racing games at the moment). I also find my patience and energy dwindle when I'm presented with extensive menus, stats, and skill trees, so these big RPG's are tough for me at this point

I understand the complaints about the minute-to-minute gameplay systems in Bethesda's games, but the sum of these parts has always (for me) resulted in some of the most immersive and fun experiences across all of games. It's easy to pick apart Skyrim in a granular way, but much harder to articulate how epic and fun the experience of playing the game is once you sink into it. This game looks incredible. I won't be playing it, but I'm happy for people who love big, meaty RPG games. These seem rarer now, and between this and BG3, it's an amazing year for the genre.

Agreed, and it's wild to me how far back this goes. Browsing reviews from 20 years ago will give you the same exact kind of comments and arguments, with the difference being that they're even more vitriolic and higher in volume now.

You are right on, and the sinister colonialism that's part of basically all western game design now deserves a serious look. Also guns. The difference I'm trying to draw here, and why I think games are more nuanced, is that they can contain both Tetris and Life and Strange, Rez and Papers, Please. In some of the best games (and my favorite) in the entire medium, the interactivity alone is the game. In others, that same tactile, core interactivity is not integral (or is at least secondary) to the experience. How can you reconcile that with the exact same critical approach? You've written very articulately in the past about games like The Last of Us, which are desperate to be taken seriously and think they have something to say, only to be gamified outside of their cutscenes by collectibles and achievements that are discordant with their themes. I think that's why game criticism is in a tough spot. Anything is possible within games, which makes them amazing and worthwhile while also terrifying and often disappointing. But effectively criticizing something as multi-dimensional as a video game from all possible angles, including whatever embedded societal and economic oppression they may represent, seems an impossible and thankless task in an environment where the general audience is terminally online and misinformed. Not that it shouldn't be done, and often, but I do think the context is important. I've written all of this and don't even know if it's making much sense. My main issue is with aggregate review scores, and my frustration with simultaneously how pointless they are yet how much weight they carry. Games deserve better than this system, but it's not going anywhere.

For sure. I'm not interested in lots of new, AAA graphical powerhouse type games. I mostly play older stuff, mixed with indies and emulation. It seems like it would be a pretty great device for that stuff.

I think it's the fact that it can be argued as the first premier, first-party exclusive for Xbox after a severe dry spell, releasing at the tail end of a phenomenal year for games, in a genre (space?) where people's expectations are generally very unrealistic. Maybe that's overblown, but it feels like the temperature of this game has been continually rising, and Microsoft surely has very high expectations for the game's performance given the long development cycle and extreme QA effort. I'm honestly not interested in playing the game, and don't have the time for something this sprawling, but the conversation around it even pre-release has been quite the ride. I expect the reviews to be highly dramatic, and I can't wait.