I wept the day our city’s hobby shop closed. In the early 2000s, Hardcastle was Tucson’s premier purveyor of miniature models. This underlit, badly air-conditioned store dwelled in the back-alley parking lot of a destitute strip mall on the West Side of town, almost a full hour’s drive from where my family lived. A less auspicious location to play games could hardly be imagined. In my memory there are black bags taped over the windows, and dust shimmers where burning rays of Arizona sun pierce between these makeshift blinds. A Mountain Dew aroma oozes from atop astroturfed tables, while Nirvana and Red Hot Chili Peppers thrum over tinny speakers.

Whether it was quite so dingy as that, I can’t say. But I do remember that it was a marvelous shop. Through its long entry corridor, towers held army after army. Long gunlines of brand-new Tau models welcomed every visitor. Necrons and Chaos Space Marines stood stalwart behind glass. At the counter within the shop, pre-built and painted models were sold, and along the opposite wall, stacks and stacks of Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Warhammer 40,000 miniatures hung.

It was, in retrospect, a perfectly average hobby shop. But it was the only one in Tucson at the time. Despite the distance, I went there with my family constantly around the era of 4^th and 5^th edition 40k. I shudder to think of the money my father wasted on expensive plastic spacemen for his sons who lacked the intellectual capacity to make use of them. He was happy to do it though; my father had no interest in miniature wargaming, but he had been obsessed with Warhammer since making the random purchase of second edition Space Hulk in 1996. I own the full contents of that box to this day, and he continues to read nearly every Black Library book that gets released—including every title in the Horus Heresy.

I was infatuated with the oddities Hardcastle sold. In this age, before resin and long prior to Primaris, white metal still reigned. I would always be drawn to the enormous range of metal figures in blister packs on the wall. There were countless strange, unique characters for sale in both Fantasy and 40k, and they fascinated me. Characters like Commander Dante seemed mythological. Their models were older than me. They made 40k seem like an institution, as firm and steadfast as the Earth we walked upon.

Would a boy getting into 40k would look at Guilliman the same way today? His model is almost ten years old. But I doubt it. The mystique of metal, in the dawning era of plastic, was part of the magic spell.

Learning more about Second Edition and the history of 40k today, it’s funny to realize that those miniatures really weren’t so old after all. Dante was released less than two years before I was born, and I was hardly eight. But two years is everything to an eight-year-old.

Hardcastle went out of business shortly after the financial crash. I remember the day I found out vividly. My childhood was very lonely and very troubled, cursed by never-ending medical problems, and there were few places I took comfort in. Though I had never learned 40k’s rules, never assembled an army or really painted anything approaching value, Hardcastle had been a place that mattered to me.

My father broke the news, and I ran to my bunk bed, literally weeping. I was prone to such outbursts. Where would I go to admire Commander Dante now? How would I get new Warhammer?

The answer was nowhere.

Over the coming years, I developed the habit of scrolling through the Games Workshop webstore, tabbing through their game systems, and gawking at the majesty of the old Forge World’s offerings with some regularity. It became a custom each Christmas for my father to buy me Space Marines. I came into possession of 5^th edition Sanguinary Guard, Death Company, and Grey Hunters this way, all of which remained unbuilt (partially) until I scavenged them for parts this year.

I did occasionally try to paint. With a local hobby store, I might have kept with it. But without Hardcastle, there was no way to learn the games, no way to explore the model ranges, no magic left for me to find. I remember searching through Tucson with my dad for a replacement store, but there were none at that time, c. 2010-2012. These days there are at least three that carry GW products, and we even have our own official Warhammer store. But things were different back then.

So I gave it up. The last miniature set I ever bought was the Forge World Krieg Commissar bundle. I lost them when I moved to college, and I deeply regret that (because they were expensive as hell for a fourteen-year-old: look at this!):

The Context

I am afflicted by something called a “non-verbal learning disorder.” This condition describes a severe visual-spatial incapacity. There is no word in English that can express my coordinational disability. I usually tell people I’m dyspraxic, but this really doesn’t go far enough. It took me many years to learn how to have even vaguely legible handwriting in school. I was sent to physical therapy as a child for no particular reason other than clumsiness, where I was deemed less athletic than the girl in a leg cast. I get along with sports like a Space Wolf with a Dark Angel. I have never drawn a straight line of any length or made a perfect circle.

Once, when I was in college, the guy at the desk behind me leaned over my shoulder and gestured at my notes:

“I just wanted you to know,” he said, “that you have the worst handwriting I’ve ever seen.”

I am fortunate to live in a digital era where I can spend most of my days pretending to be unburdened by the physical body that has never felt like it really belongs to me. I mention all this now, of course, because when a child whose visual-spatial skills are retarded to the level of an infant sets his mind to miniature painting, the results are predictably calamitous:

I must have been about eight when I “painted” the top marine. I might have been as old as ten when I defiled the Defiler. It was my brother’s model, and he was furious with me for choosing such a creative color scheme. As you can see, I didn’t know about priming (and he didn’t know about isopropyl alcohol). This caused a great deal of consternation when working with white metal minis.

My particular obsession was with kitbashing Tau and Space Marine models together, for some reason, always using disastrous amounts of hot glue. I also had the habit of putting Space Marine shoulder pads on backward, which I did despite having access to codices that would have shown me otherwise. I guess I didn’t care.

For the sake of my own shame I will spare you any further horrors from within the bits box of my youth. There are many more.

This mishandling of expensive plastic miniatures continued well beyond the age it should have. For that I have no defense.

By the time I reached the enlightenment of puberty, I saw painting and Warhammer as an important part of my identity. I had begun reading the novels and often discussed the lore with my family. I played every game available and especially adored Dawn of War 2. But I had also become keenly aware of my utter inability as a painter. This was likewise before the mass availability of painting tutorials online, in YouTube’s earliest days.

It may not be possible for one to have less of an affinity for something than I do for miniature painting. It is like composing poetry in a language one cannot speak. Fine motor control is almost impossible for me. I cannot even comprehend how a person might imagine something and draw it. I can imagine something and describe it, in extreme detail. But the second I put a pencil to paper, nothing makes sense.

It is, according to some, an actual autism spectrum disorder.

So after 2012, I gave up. There was never a conscious decision to stop painting miniatures. There never really is. But it’s difficult to enjoy being so terrible at something, and I didn’t have a mind to improve. So I simply stopped.

I always thought that I’d come back, someday. I just didn’t know when. I missed Finecast. I missed the release of Knights. I completely missed Primaris. It all happened out of view, barely acknowledged. Lore updates were received around the dinner table. That was the extent of my engagement with Warhammer.

The Next Year

At the end of 2023, I was diagnosed with adult-onset type 1 diabetes. This diagnosis followed a lifetime of severe, rare medical disorders carried over from childhood and completely changed my life. It stole my love for gaming from me and killed this blog. In the year that followed, struggling badly to cope, I needed something to replace my lifelong passion.

For eight months, I had nothing. I started working out for the first time in my life. I hated it, but there was nothing else that I could stand to do. Games no longer held any joy. I couldn’t even write.

Then Space Marine II was released.

If I had done a good job maintaining this blog, readers would know that Space Marine II has been my obsession for the last year and a half. Instead I’ve never even mentioned it. Let me review it briefly now:

Space Marine II is very good. Together with Rogue Trader, it thoroughly reignited my passion for Warhammer 40,000. The week after SM2 came out, I went to the nearest hobby shop, picked up an Eldar Kill Team, and built my first miniatures in twelve years.

And the experience was so horrific that I gave up halfway.

This was not so dissimilar to what I had gone through utterly failing to get into Blood Bowl several years earlier. But it wasn’t what I remembered as a child. This time, unlike last, I refused to be deterred. I drove forty minutes back to the GW store and bought some Space Marines instead.

That first Primaris kit that I had ever seen or built was not a horrific experience. The models proved much more restrictive than I remember from the early 2000s, but they looked great put together, and my reservations over lore changes had mostly melted away after listening to a few newer audiobooks.

My first paintjob looked like I was eight years old again.

For a reason I can’t articulate now, I thought I knew what I was doing. I thought that I had experience. I quickly learned I was mistaken. I didn’t know about thinning my paints, had no understanding of how to pick out materials on the miniature, and had no brush control whatsoever.

And yet though it may seem a horror—I was actually impressed. This was better than I thought I would be able to do. I was expecting another Defiler.

Thus from this beginning, I decided to see how far I could push myself.

This is where I start. A dead-end paintjob on an Ultramarines successor chapter. I realized there was no chance I would ever try painting white again. More importantly, the Blood Angels, my favorite chapter as a kid, were getting a refresh. They were who I would play.

I stripped the models and tried again.

This was some improvement. I had spent hours watching videos. I still didn’t know what I was doing. Brush control felt impossible. Getting a smooth base coat was incredibly challenging for me.

But now I was infected. I was addicted to plastic crack. It was too late to get out.

Though it took a year to find them, my Blood Angels proved to be the thing I needed to replace gaming. They were the distraction from diabetes that I had been desperate for. I do not know what I would be doing or where I would be had I not found Warhammer again. But I’m glad I won’t need to find out.

My life has looked like this for the last fourteen months. In that time, painting has supplanted all other forms of leisure. I have played only one new game this year. I have watched zero films, new or old. I have viewed one reality television series—Clarkson’s Farm—and nothing scripted. I have listened to over fifty books on audio. And I have painted, and painted, and painted.

I’ve played one thousand hours of Classic WoW since 2019. I’ve had a tremendous time with it, and every winter I feel the urge to play it again. But what do I have to show for that time? For seven hundred hours logged on my Fire mage? What evidence exists to prove that I was alive at all for those seven hundred hours?

I don’t even know where my mage lives anymore. I think she’s been swept along to a Classic Legion server. I won’t ever play her again. Her purples earned in Molten Core mean nothing. No one will ever care. I can’t even show them to anyone.

Seven hundred hours spent laboring over a hobby desk with paint and miniature have yielded me a vast army of Blood Angels. Anyone who comes to my house can see it. I could sell it. I can play games of Warhammer 40,000 10th Edition with it. Unless it is stolen or my house burns down, I will always have it. It isn’t going anywhere. My time invested is there, material, before my eyes.

Maybe little plastic soldiers don’t matter. But at least they’re real. This is what I’ve learned, paradoxically, now that every day living in reality is a hundred times harder than it ever was before. I spent all of my life hiding inside video games, and in all that time, I produced nothing real at all. What was the point?

This blog post isn’t about my experience with weight loss or becoming physically active, but the principle is much the same. It’s been two years since I first set foot in a gym. My progress isn’t amazing. But after a thousand hours or more lifting weights, I can see the difference. Anyone can.

What would a thousand more hours of Crusader Kings III have earned me?

Not all time spent needs to be productive. An activity isn’t a waste just because it doesn’t scar the materium. I’ve still played some games this year. A bit of WoW. Quite a bit of Space Marine II. But nothing at all compared to last year. Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 was the only new game I played all year, period, and though I meant to review it for this blog, I disliked it so much that I couldn’t be bothered. There were too many minis to paint instead.

Proof in the Materium

So here is the trace that my year of labor with a paintbrush has left in the physical realm. This is a gallery of every model I’ve worked on since I started my collection. I’ve been repainting miniatures steadily as I improve, going back and adding highlights, and so this won’t be a true indicator of progress. These miniatures are way too expensive to stand as living museum pieces. I don’t find any value in that.

Though I was confident in my choice of Legion, I knew early on that I wanted to diverge and make my own color scheme. I spent several months trying to settle on something that both worked and felt unique. It wasn’t until I was browsing the Horus Heresy catalogue and stumbled across the Angel’s Tears units that I had my revelation.

My successor chapter would be descendants of the Angel’s Tears destroyers, and they would be red, silver, and gold.

This is how they stand now. The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth companies of the Angel’s Tears, who mostly use normal Blood Angels iconography. Though the challenge of building out a single company of Space Marines has always appealed to me, the scarcity of Blood Angels shoulder decals—and my utter inability to freehand them—meant that I really had no choice but to organize my forces this way. I like it, though. Each group has a different specialty.

No Blood Angels successor would be complete without its own Death Company, of course:

This is the whole of my army. It’s something like three thousand points in 10th Edition, though I’ve only ever played one 500-point game. Many of these models were painted at least twice. Some have been stripped three or more times, including the dreadnought.

My first vehicle, he was a disaster. Building him was miserable, and I utterly failed to layer Khorne Red thin enough over black to build opacity smoothly. A horrible texture covered his armor panels, and I had no choice but to strip and start over.

Creating smooth base coats with Khorne Red then and still now proved my greatest struggle. Thin, watery layers flood the details and clog them up. Thick layers inevitably create tide marks, even when careful not to touch up areas already painted. But I decided to try moving over to a red primer, and the results were tremendous. I had an amazing time painting this model. My motor control issues felt basically non-existent when working with such a large sculpt, and for the first time, I had the confidence to try highlighting the edges.

The color I used was much too soft. But he still represents a huge step forward in my skill as a painter. I had thought that highlighting would simply be impossible for me. I didn’t even bother trying. Now I wondered if it was something worth practicing.

So I practiced. I went back to old models to clean up messy details and add edge highlights. I learned more about shading and discovered panel lining, mostly thanks to Duncan Rhodes, and started putting it into practice:

Working up to these fairly basic techniques took me about six months. I can barely write my own name. How could I highlight a miniature?

I quickly learned that it isn’t as hard as people make it out to be. With a good brush, acceptance that it might be a bit messy, and a willingness to spend huge amounts of time per mini, acceptable results are achievable by literally anyone. My highlights don’t look anything like what I see people post on Reddit. They’re way too thick and almost never neat enough. But they’re still good enough when you don’t have a camera blowing up the miniature to ten times its real size.

At thirteen, I never would have believed I could have painted to this level. At twenty-seven, I’m frustrated that I still struggle with so many basic principles. Where my collection does look relatively good, what can’t be seen are the countless visits to the isopropyl bath, and the endless hours spent fixing simple mistakes. For me, painting is an exercise in patience. I have to repaint any area five or six times per model. My hands slip constantly. More complicated techniques are effectively off-limits, because if I can’t touch an area up after moving on, there’s really no point. I’ve spent an unbelievable amount of time experimenting with contrast paints; I love them, but the truth is they’re basically impossible for me to use. Mistakes are too hard to correct, and I make too many mistakes.

But over time, I’ve found what works. And the results are good enough.

Along with basing, waterslide transfers were one of the biggest hurdles that I had to get over. I spent months avoiding them, because I remembered being utterly baffled by this strange technology as a child. By the time I dared to try, I used hard Arizona tap water, and the results were terrible.

With Microset and Microsol, it became trivially easy.

Decals are amazing. I abuse them now. My models are festooned with stickers. I will never be able to freehand an aquila, or a skull, or even draw a numeral to an acceptable standard. Transfers allow me to add that level of verisimilitude to my figures anyway.

My love isn’t just for Space Marines. When I returned to the hobby, it certainly wasn’t foregone that I would be basic enough to collect Primaris marines. I’ve done some experimenting. I finished the new Stealth Suit kill team earlier this month:

I’ve always particularly loved the Guard. Had it not been for the vast expense of collecting an Imperial Guard army, they would have been my first choice. In the end, I didn’t need that many models to get my fill of them. But they sure take up space on the shelf:

I also dabbled in Space Wolves when their refresh was released earlier this year. My father always loved Wolves the best. I was skeptical of their aesthetic for a long time, and several old kits lay unbuilt in my closet for over a decade. But I decided to finally make use of them and buy some Grey Hunters, just for fun.

Looking over those new Grey Hunters, I realized that they were some of the best sculpts I’d ever built. I loved painting them. So I got Blood Claws. And a few characters, to build out a custom Angels of Death kill team. And I read through Russ’ books in the Heresy.

It turns out, I actually do like the Space Wolves. Russ might even be my favorite Primarch.

My Wolves are, I think, my best-painted miniatures. Some of the highlights are too soft to make out, but Warpaints Fanatic’s Wolf Grey goes on smoothly despite my mishandling, and though it’s basic, I’m proud of the freehand pack markings on their shoulders and knees.

Maybe the first models I was ever proud of, before returning to repaint much of my Blood Angels, were my Tempestus Aquilons. I probably spent a hundred hours on this squad. It was an agonizing two weeks that drained every moment of my free time and idle thought. But I will always have these figures as proof of that time spent, no matter what the results objectively are:

My final project for the year was the new Deathwatch squad. I do not enjoy painting black, but I repainted my entire Death Company in practice, then used what I’d learned. I challenged myself to finish one mini a night, every night, until the entire squad was done: no matter how good or bad that mini was, I could spend no more than one day on it.

The results were fantastic. I didn’t need more than six hours for any marine. Most took around four. The last two took significantly less. All of them look great, for my level of skill.

I still don’t like painting black.

My crowning achievement for the year must be Miao Ying. She’s my favorite lord in Total War: Warhammer III by far, and her new sculpt for The Old World is among the best GW has ever released—now officially voted the best of their non-40k models for the year. I had intended to start a Grand Cathay army, but I decided that I didn’t want to paint several hundred near-identical peasant levies.

Maybe someday.

I don’t think she came out especially well. The freehand is messy, to say the least, and my drybrushing on the dragon’s scales looks awful. I had to hide it with a gallon of purple wash to salvage the paintjob. But she’s still a beautiful model, and she looks great on my shelf.

More than any other skill over the last fourteen months, I have been obsessed with learning how to paint faces. I have watched hundreds of hours of tutorials and scoured the Internet for blog posts explaining how to make model faces look right. Mostly I found the advice totally useless. It always centered around placing highlights, despite never saying where the highlights should go, and almost everyone said not to bother painting eyes or eyebrows—the two details that I quickly found made even the most poorly painted face look incredibly good.

I like unhelmeted heads. Faces give miniatures character. I wanted to be able to paint them well. But it was not easy.

This is one of the first models I did, after sorting out the basics, and is one of the only in my army that I haven’t repainted. At the time I considered his face to be the best I was capable of. Just getting a smooth layer of flesh tone was challenging. I still often struggle with this. I added a wash into his eyes and small lines for the brow and dared to do no more.

If this were easily replicable, I would have stayed at this level for a long time. But I found that even this face had basically been a fluke. For the next six months I tried and failed to paint faces that were this good.

Though some came out better than others, nothing I read worked. The flesh tones people said to use always came out too dark. My highlights were always too harsh, creating too much contrast. Washes never looked right. I couldn’t layer detail back onto the faces correctly. My brush control wasn’t good enough to make the shading stand out.

This changed when I painted Saint Celestine to be my Sanguinor proxy. I kitbashed her as a custom warp entity called the “Bride of Sanguinius,” then followed a painting guide and simply added white to her eyes, instead of black or shade like I had before.

It was messy. It took three tries, stripping and repriming the head. But it wasn’t as hard as I expected it to be.

It looked good.

If I could paint the whites of the eyes, then I could surely add in dots of black?

For the rest of the year, this became my challenge. I practiced at every opportunity. It was extremely tedious. Constantly the paint wouldn’t flow from my brush when attempting to dot the pupils on my miniatures. I missed about 85% of the time. Success or failure came down to a fluke. When a face did turn out well, I had no idea why. One among a squad of five would look fantastic. The rest would look as bad as the day I’d started.

Imperial Guard gave me room to experiment.

Then, with Space Wolves, I felt like I was making progress:

I decided to ditch black paint and get some .5 mm pens to use for eyes instead. This was the best decision I’d made in the hobby. It’s extremely easy to dot pupils using these pens. Combined with an increased understanding of shading, highlighting, and how to mix paints for a midtone, I’m no longer ashamed to show off the faces I’ve painted.

Almost any time someone online mentions painting faces, they will be given the advice to skip the eyes because it’s too hard. Well, man the fuck up, because if I can do it, you can, too. Get a micron pen or a sharp brush and some Black Legion contrast paint and dot those fucking eyes. It really does make a difference. Faces with eyes look so much better than ones without. They have an entire world more humanity to them.

Eyes are the auspex to the soul. Your Space Marines cannot have souls without them. And add on eyebrows, too.

I still often have no idea what I did to make one face look good and another look bad. I have no intuitive understanding of any of this. Painting does not come naturally to me at all. It is a foreign language, spoken in a foreign country. But it’s starting to feel more like home.

What’s Next?

I don’t plan on stopping. I’d like to learn the rules and play more games as we get ready for 11th Edition, though it’s challenging to find people where I currently am. I’m interested in 2nd Edition and working on a retro army, and I’d also like to step back from 40,000 and descend into the Horus Heresy. After having built a few kits of 30k marines, I’ve found that the more realistic proportions are much more appealing to me. I’m currently preparing to paint a small Isstvan III last stand force of Emperor’s Children. From there, I will go where the winds of my whims carry me.

I fear that I haven’t been improving much over the last several months. Now comfortably highlighting and shading my models, I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to move on to more advanced techniques. My brush control simply isn’t good enough to spend hours layering or glazing an armor panel, when there’s such a constant risk of mistakes. Painting in sub-assemblies could mitigate those fears, but building and kitbashing is my favorite part of the hobby. I’d rather not dilute it in that way.

Maybe improvement isn’t necessary. Low as it may be, in a single year I’ve achieved a level of skill I never thought I’d be able to reach. And that is only one year.

Warhammer is ridiculously expensive. It’s time-consuming. It kills my back. I will never be as good at it as most people who have invested the same amount of effort into it that I have. But compared to video games, movies, television, and really all of pop culture—well, I’d rather go paint some more minis. I don’t see that changing any time soon.

One Last Self-Indulgence

For the sake of logging my progress, at the end of 2025, these are my four favorite models in my collection. They aren’t necessarily the best painted. Just the ones I like the best.

I wanted to create a squad of Sanguinary Guard that fit the true “Angel’s Tears” origins of my successor chapter. The best of their number was born from these obscenely expensive Heresy bits. I love the custom pose he has, wielding a severed head from an old Grey Knight. He looks like a ballerina performing a pirouette of death.

After finding myself with a second spare Blood Angels captain, I decided to turn one of them into an homage to the classic Tycho for my Fifth Company captain. This kitbash was the result. He was one of the first minis that ever received painted eyes, and although it’s extremely basic, I enjoyed the “freehand” of the retro-inspired heraldry I gave him. He’s completely unique. That’s what I find important.

I’d been looking for a Combi-Lieutenant for a long time without luck. One day, at the local game store, there were two for sale.

This model had a rough coat of gray already established and came pre-based. Rather than stripping and starting over, I cut off his left arm and painted directly over what was there. The gray worked well as an undercoat for Khorne Red, and I finished him in a single sitting.

I don’t know why. But I’m extremely satisfied with the result. He just looks awesome.

My favorite model of the year is this humble Reiver sergeant. The highlights on his armor turned out incredibly well. His face is smooth and angelic. The red looks fantastic and is as clean as I will ever be able to paint. But more than anything else, I’m proud of his right shoulderpad. There are no Tenth Company sergeant transfer decals. If I wanted him to look “right” with black pauldrons, I had to freehand my own.

So I did.

It doesn’t get much more basic than a red circle. For me, with my fine motor skill deficiencies, simply drawing that red circle was a tremendous challenge. It was far, far harder than perfectly dotting a thousand Guardsman pupils. And it’s still a little gnarly if you look too close.

I don’t care. I love it anyway. This is by far my favorite figure in my collection. My only hope is that by the end of next year, I’ll love someone new twice as much as him.

When it was announced in 2023 that Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater would be the first of the classic 3D Metal Gear games to receive a remake, I and so many other fans of the series rejoiced. The choice to start with the series’ third entry could be questioned only by outsiders. Snake Eater is Metal Gear Solid’s chronological beginning, but also its indisputable height, where its narrative, level, and gameplay design all cohered into the absolute zenith of the franchise. Metal Gear Solid has primitive graphics; Metal Gear Solid 2 has Raiden; Metal Gear Solid 4 has way too many cutscenes; Metal Gear Solid V has no ending and the worst twist of all time. 3 has no such fundamental flaw. 3 is the Big Boss.

Snake Eater is the best Metal Gear Solid game, by a lot. With the Subsistence upgrade I am of the opinion that it is as close to perfection as any video game can ever be, given the context of when it was released.

Snake Eater also happens to be my favorite Metal Gear Solid, and the entry that holds the most personal significance in my life. Many long days home sick from school were spent skulking through the swamplands of, uh, Siberia. I remember summer afternoons where I returned to Groznyj Grad, eating pizza with my brothers and playing “Guy Savage.” Sleepover nights with my best friend Timothy were whittled away by shooting Major Raikov in the dick with tranq darts. When the HD Collection came out in 2011, it became my Thanksgiving tradition for a decade thereafter to replay the game while the smells of roasting turkey and simmering stuffing wafted into the living room.

More hours were spent making my own fun in Snake Eater than any other game growing up, aside from Halo 2. When I returned to it at the end of high school and finally beat it on a non-lethal European Extreme run, I rediscovered the story, and became convinced that Hideo Kojima was a genius of our time—even if V had not been all I hoped for. After making some money for the first time working as an actor, I had to talk myself down from blowing it all on a $200 Naked Snake statuette.

All this navel-gazing is to make the point that Snake Eater is a decidedly played-out game for me. I know each line of dialogue and every inch of every level. Though I hadn’t finished it since 2016, and some details of how to beat specific bosses and where to find certain weapons had left my memory, there was nothing new for me to discover while I entered Δ’s embrace. As I loaded up the first cutscene and heard David Hayter’s familiar voice, already that familiarity was a little too close, like maybe nine years still hadn’t been long enough.

This is the frame of mind I use as I evaluate Metal Gear Solid Δ: Snake Eater’s merits as a remake.

After the End of World War II….

Δ is an exactingly precise remake. There is no reimagining here. It is shot-for-shot, made with tremendous love and care for the original, bringing what could be called outdated graphics and controls into the modern generation. Unlike The Twin Snakes, the GameCube remake of the original Metal Gear Solid, the style of the cutscenes has been maintained, while the visuals have been updated.

The character animations are spectacular. The cutscenes seem unaltered, but I know the faces, the ways in which the bodies move, could not possibly have been so detailed in 2004. It’s a cliche, but I mean it when I say Metal Gear Solid Δ looks how I remember Snake Eater looking in my childhood memory. It is a beautiful game.

Nevertheless there are some questionable visual departures from the original. Snake, Ocelot, and Eva have all received redesigns. More than “liking” or “disliking” their new faces, they were different enough to be distracting. I never found myself getting used to the changes, which wasn’t the case with The Last of Us: Part I several years ago.

But not The Boss. She must be the most amazingly rendered character I have ever seen in a video game. I can’t criticize members of the Cobra Unit, or Volgin, either. Still one must question why the main cast was altered so significantly in a remake that otherwise focuses so strongly on fidelity to the original. Those of us who care about fidelity are surely going to notice changes to character appearance more than anything else, no?

For my part, I wouldn’t have lost sleep over Groznyj Grad getting another tunnel or two. But I am annoyed that Snake doesn’t look like Snake.

But the game is otherwise intact. Every level. Every boss fight. Every physics interaction and enemy behavior and sound effect and exploit you remember from Snake Eater. All have been faithfully recreated in Unreal Engine 5, presumably at great effort, to create what should be the perfect remake. Nothing has been removed for being too problematic. You can still see Eva’s history of receiving breast enhancements in the Survival Viewer. The only significant change to the gameplay is that projectile drop has been added to the Mk. 22, thus nerfing non-lethal runs. Everything else feels the same.

One would think that this is good news, given that I began this review with the claim that Snake Eater is and was a perfect game. If nothing is changed from perfection, nothing can be ruined. Certainly I do not trust Konami, nor even Kojima himself, to improve a masterpiece like Snake Eater without damaging it in the process, like a surgeon with sausages for fingers reaching inside your colon in search of something very small.

I commend the developers for restraining themselves for this reason. I would give a strong recommendation to Δ for fans and newcomers alike were this truly the case. Surely we are left with updated, modernized, beautiful perfection as a result?

Alas there are changes after all. Not to the game’s content, but to its systems, and they are not so benign. They introduce flaws where before none were found.

The World Was Split Into Two

The first decision presented in Δ is whether to play the game in “New” or “Legacy” Style. This will affect everything that follows.

New Style controls turn Δ into a facsimile of MGSV. The camera is limited-FoV and always third-person. CQC is performed with the right trigger, while aiming with the left trigger will turn the right trigger into the fire button. Snake cannot shoot without aiming in this scheme. Rolling has been given a dedicated button. Equipment is controlled with the d-pads. The biggest departure from the original is the introduction of crouch walking, which works just as you might expect. Snake had not discovered this technique in Snake Eater and would be forced to crawl if attempting to move while crouched previously. Now he can simply move while half-prone.

I played the entire game in New Style for the sake of experiencing the remake.

The controls in the classic Metal Gear Solid games were not intuitive. They are of their own era and relied on pressure-sensitive button presses to create precision in aiming and leaning, a technology that is both lost to time and completely unheard of on PC when playing with keyboard and mouse. Taking hostages, swapping between first and third person, and simply shooting could require absolutely bizarre contortions of the hand across the controller. It took dozens of hours to get used to these.

Worse, the first three Metal Gear Solid games relied on extraordinarily awkward fixed-perspective overhead cameras. In a 3D game these had the strange quirk of obscuring what often lay just out of sight, so that you might be spotted by a guard three inches from Snake’s nose, simply because the camera was positioned such that he was invisible.

Snake Eater received a re-release in 2005 called Subsistence that addressed this latter problem. It added a true third person camera that the player could swap to at will. There was no aiming with this camera, like there would be come MGS4, but it completely changed your relationship with the 3D environment. Using these two cameras in tandem always gave an excellent idea of where guards were and where the player needed to go.

The controls were not so easily updated. But they didn’t need to be. I understand that many new players bounce off of Snake Eater’s control scheme today, and I think a remake did have to modernize it somewhat. But while it took an immense dedication to master, it could be mastered. And once a player had mastered corner-leaning, pressure-sensitive aiming, and hostage-taking, the depth was tremendous.

Here we come to Δ’s biggest problem. Where the menu says, “the same controls as the original game,” it is telling a truth within a lie. Legacy Style does not control anything like the original release of Snake Eater, but it does use its original camera—not that from Subsistence. Legacy Style lacks the true third person camera and forces the player into top-down perspective. You cannot swap between both at will like you can in Subsistence.

In New Style, you are locked into over-the-shoulder, MGSV-style gameplay. You cannot swap to the top-down camera, ever. You are allowed to go between New and Legacy Style controls without starting a new campaign, but you have to reload from the latest checkpoint when you do. This apparently changes the Mk. 22’s projectile drop-off, and maybe some other things.

Legacy Style is unplayable. You will never be able to see what you are doing or where you are going. I realize that this is what the original version I played as a kid was like, but I cannot go back to this: it’s awful. But maybe even worse is that Snake’s movement in Δ is tremendously sluggish and awkward compared to the original release. Combined with the top-down camera, it is simply unbearable. I believe the developers wanted Snake to feel “heavier” than he did in Snake Eater due to the improved quality of the animations, but they made a tremendous mistake. After digging out my old Xbox to play some MGS3HD I can safely say that the difference between the two games’ movement controls is like PS1 to PS2.

MGS3 is snappy and precise. Snake goes exactly where you want him to go. Δ is driving a truck by comparison. Positioning along walls is especially unpleasant. There’s no dynamic cover here like in The Last of Us, a feature that this remake badly needed. Snake feels like he’s been superglued to trees whenever you duck against one for cover; they are now an environmental hazard to be carefully avoided. This is nothing like it used to be.

The hour or so I spent replaying the game on European Extreme in Legacy Style was a horrible experience.

This leaves us with New Style. But I’m unhappy to report that, although Snake Eater never felt designed for a top-down camera, it was most certainly not designed for New Style controls.

Nothing has been changed in Δ. Not level layouts. Not enemy design. Not boss mechanics. But being able to move while aiming and crouch while walking has completely revolutionized the gameplay. These new systems feel as though they have been added in because they are expected, because other games in this series and other stealth action titles have them, but not with consideration of the totality of the game.

Consider crouching. Snake Eater is full of places that are accessible only by crawling: narrow passages, crawlspaces, and areas under bridges within trenches. MGSV had similar areas, and one would access them through a combination of crawling and crouching.

Not in Δ. In Δ, these areas are still crawl-only. Because the level design hasn’t been updated in any respect, there are no crouch-accessible locations. Crouching is never necessary, and it really has no effect at all, except as a tool in one’s sneaking arsenal: it’s the same as walking slowly, for the most part.

But it does change the controls significantly. In the boss fight with Volgin, he has a move where Snake must drop to the ground to avoid being shot. In the original game this is a trivial operation. You press the crouch button or roll, then get back up: moving while holding the stand button will make Snake stand, since you can’t move while crouched. If he’s crawling, he’ll soon be standing.

Except now you can move while crouched. Thus instead of standing in this fight, while trying to avoid Volgin’s attacks, Snake will crouch walk. While he’s crouched, instead of standing, he might crawl again.

This happened to me constantly. In places where I simply wanted to crawl or stand, because those were the stages of movement supported by the level, I was instead crouch-walking—moving slowly, for no reason. This was tremendously frustrating, and there was no way around it, no easy fix. It is a fundamental flaw with how crouch has been implemented in Δ. You will always have to grapple with this issue when you play this remake from now on.

The ability to crouch is a root-level change to movement. A third state of positionality has been introduced that was never meant to be. The entire game had to be re-engineered to support it. It wasn’t. The developers grafted it on, and it shows. This was a huge mistake, and it makes Δ much worse than it should have been.

Meanwhile, equipment selection has been moved to the d-pads, to make way for shooting on the triggers. This change has been made with very little thought. Changing weapons quickly is vital in this game; it’s how you reload (yes, really), and it’s necessary on higher difficulties. You need to be able to do it while moving. The game was designed that way.

You cannot walk and use the d-pad at the same time, if that isn’t obvious.

But there is more. In New Style controls, Snake cannot shoot without aiming. This introduces a legion of bizarre issues. Certain boss fights, like the Fear, are now far harder, because every bullet must be manually aimed. Others, like Ocelot, are of course trivially easy—because the aiming challenge has been almost entirely removed. Stun cigarettes are now useless; in the past Snake could strafe past enemies and puff his cigarettes to knock them out, but they’re terrible when you have to aim, slowly walk up to your victim, and deliberately blow smoke into his mouth from point-blank range.

You can’t fire from the hip anymore, and you can’t run through a map screaming while slaughtering guards. You must go slowly and aim.

Control issues come to a head during the Shagohod sequence. The New Style camera is a disaster during the bike chase. Because you can’t swap between New and Legacy styles on the fly, they’ve opted to use the original game’s camera work—with cinematic shots following the bike—that snaps to third person while you aim. But because there’s no spatial relationship between where Snake aims and where the camera points, it is the most tremendously jarring and disorientating sequence of any game I’ve ever played. A GRU soldier will appear beneath a bridge, right in front of Snake, and you will aim to shoot him—and your camera will snap around to face the opposite direction, showing you a wall, and you will have no idea what you’re looking at.

In Subsistence, you could simply use third person mode in this section, and it would cause no problems. Going back and forth between third-person and cinematic cameras felt natural and did not induce vomit. While in the “Legacy” camera mode, you could aim and shoot while on the bike, without having to go into third person at all. The removal of hipfire autoaim is the primary culprit in introducing such a weird, painful incongruence with the original game.

MGS3 was not designed to be played this way. It wanted you to use your infinite ammo to open up on those soldiers with the M63. You were not meant to painstakingly aim in third person mode, fiddling with a camera facing the wrong direction, battling your own disorientation, while being chased by Volgin.

Just like MGS3 wasn’t designed for crouch walking. Just like MGS3 wasn’t designed for equipment select on the d-pad. These features do not belong to this game.

East and West

If you have never played Snake Eater, you won’t be overbothered by quibbles with the camera, and I doubt you’ll feel so compelled to non-lethal takedown Volgin that problems standing up and down while dodging his attacks on Extreme difficulty cause you much grief. If you are young, if you missed Metal Gear Solid, if you have a high tolerance for the Japanese and like stealth games, pick up Δ. It will be a far more palatable experience for you than grappling with Subsistence’s controls and staring down the PS2-era graphics.

But I am not that person. I can review this game only from the perspective of myself. And I am left with a simple question:

Is this a better version of the game than the one I have been playing since 2011?

Its controls are awkward and take a lot of practice. But beyond this much, I don’t have any issues with Subsistence on my old MGS: HD Collection. It’s an amazing game. It is almost perfect. I don’t even think the graphics look dated; despite their age, what Kojima managed on the PS2 is spectacular. His art style holds up very well. (Although I have to admit, the lip syncing is dogshit in English. Δ fixes that, thankfully.)

Δ is not perfect. Not even almost. It has multiple small but foundational issues that will always mar it. The ability to play it as a third person shooter is neat, but it’s not what the game was meant to be. Without a reimagining, it never will be. So it can never be the best way to play this game. It can only ever be neat. It’s not the actual game. It’s not Subsistence. It’s not a replacement for the original.

The graphics could be. The enhancements are amazing. If it weren’t for the weirdness of Snake’s face and Eva’s hair, maybe they’d be enough to win me over. But these things are two more marks against Δ.

What’s frustrating about Δ is that it’s so close. If the Legacy Style controls had the Subsistence camera as an option, or if the New Style controls had a toggleable top-down view, I would be able to overlook its other control issues much more easily. But this bizarre flaw spoils it badly for me. Δ needed Legacy controls with Subsistence’s camera to be a replacement for the original. Now that I’ve played some of MGS3HD again for reference, it also needed tighter movement that more closely mirrored the original game.

An Era Called the Cold War

Despite all these criticisms, after beating Δ last night in a state of thorough frustration, and despite having had no desire to return to Snake Eater for almost a decade, the first thing I wanted to do this morning was load it up again and keep playing. It still has the mana that Kojima first imbued the original’s DNA with. It still is Snake Eater. I just wish it had been a little better conceived.

There are, of course, severe technical issues. It runs badly on my PC, and Volgin killed me several times due to inexplicable latency and stuttering. I will be charitable and presume that these things are but temporary ailments, soon to be patched. They usually are.

And there are improvements beyond graphics. Savescumming has been trivialized, as you can see above. The new UI is fantastic. Tons more information on a run is available to the player, and you can now New Game+ onto higher difficulties—something that I always longed for as a kid. The additions of quick-codec calls and an instant outfit changer are inspired and make engaging with those systems far less obnoxious.

But are they enough? Do they make up for the terrible new movement, the regressed cameras, and the shitty controls?

No. With these considerations in mind, Δ cannot be the new go-to for Snake Eater. It just isn’t good enough. It’s pretty. And it’s neat. But that’s all it is. Pick it up if you’ve never played it before, but if you’re like me and on a budget, quite honestly, I’d recommend you stay away, or wait until a deep sale.

It hasn’t been ruined. If patches fix Legacy Style controls it might even be worth playing. As it is now, it adds very little. I’m not happy with it overall.

Metal Gear Solid Δ: Snake Eater, continuing the long tradition of games in this series having ridiculous names, is available now on Xbox, PlayStation, and PC. You can buy it here on Steam.

You may have noticed that I didn’t mention any of the game’s narrative components in this review. The truth is, now that I’m an adult, I hated this game’s story. I feel like I could write a million words tearing out its guts in an autopsy, explaining why Kojima’s writing is a joke, railing against teenage-me for being stupid enough to think a post-credits Ocelot voiceover was profound. But I won’t bother. I don’t really care. You know what you’re getting into with a Metal Gear Solid game. I’d rather pretend I still liked this franchise.

While amassing notes on cRPG design for a henceforth unmentionable project, I sat down this week to replay 2019’s Disco Elysium for the first time since its release. Everyone was talking about it back then, especially everyone I knew, and the opinion was universal: this was the best-written and most mature game ever released. Its script made BioWare’s attempt at adult roleplaying games look infantile. Only Fortnite players, high school dropouts, and “traditionalists” could possibly dislike it.

Contesting that premise was and remains folly. Disco Elysium is a supernova of wit; a Roman triumph of originality; a bull through the bleachers of creativity. The setting is gripping enough to strangulate. The characters are vivid and lifelike in every gutter and ditch and stretch of reeds. The political subject matter is handled reasonably well, and the script manages to be incessantly funny while brawling with serious topics.

But my thoughts were nevertheless mixed as I meandered my way through the streets of Martinaise as an ultra-liberal on that first playthrough, collecting tare and preaching the free market as a homosexual hobo-cop. With my thought closet full and the map explored, I found the thinning of the plot increasingly tiring. The midgame of Disco Elysium is blighted by huge stretches of voluminous worldbuilding that are mostly irrelevant to the mystery Harry and Kim have been sent to solve. You walk around, ask people questions about the order of creation, and then do it again. While fascinating in some academic sense, I can’t stand exposition of that kind in games. This is the same criticism I have of Planescape: Torment.

I want motion in my RPGs. I want to find the killer and progress my relationships with the NPCs. I want plot.

The story almost lost me. I got bored. Too much reading. Too slow. Where were things going? Did I even care? Yes, the writing was good; it was hilarious, it was compelling, but it felt too disorganized. Everything was too dense. I wasn’t interested enough in the setting to justify the time the writers wanted me to invest in learning about it. The grinding brakes of apathy screeched my enjoyment to a halt. I started skipping a lot of conversations.

I forced myself to the ending anyway. I stumbled into the fifth day, drunken and directionless.

Then my opinion completely changed.

The magnificent third act of Disco Elysium deserves to be studied alongside the Insulindian Phasmid within a large and virescent nature reserve. Detective Kuuno de Ruyter and I solved the case, unraveled a centuries-old mystery, apprehended a recalcitrant communard, and recovered HDB’s lost memories within what is undoubtedly the most satisfying three-hour stretch of any game I’ve ever played. So much of what I had done—and so much of it optional—came together to create a bespoke climax that I was never going to forget.

I forgave all of my criticisms of pacing and became a preacher of Disco.

In the half-decade since, I have continued to identify Disco Elysium as one of the best RPGs ever made, perhaps objectively the best. That is how good I felt the ending to be. But I’ve never counted it among my favorites. Until now I’ve never felt any desire to revisit it. I haven’t been curious about alternate paths. I haven’t been tempted to see what was added in The Final Cut.

But last night, I finished it again. This time I wanted to get every achievement, so I played a centrist-“traditionalist”-communist (at the end of the game Kim chastised me for being both a fascist and a communist, which he claimed made no sense; apparently he doesn’t know about achievements) with a spectacular physique but no intellectual or psychic capacity whatsoever. This was the inverse of my first HDB, who was frail and corporeally disintegrating, yet possessed vast mental faculties.

I had forgotten a surprising amount of the story. Though I still knew the true killer’s identity, the esplanade toward finding him had mostly left my memory. It was almost like unraveling the mystery for the first time all over again.

At first I found that I was much more forgiving of endless exposition and crushing verbosity than I was during my original playthrough. Armed with the knowledge that the story was going to go somewhere, I put up with much more than I normally would have. I had an excellent time.

But it didn’t last. After ten hours my mood toward DE mirrored my first experience with the game almost exactly. I found the beginning to be transcendent, intoxicating, entrancing; but the middle was tedious. As fun as it can be to hear the stridulations of Harry’s 9mm fingerguns while doing Mr. Claire’s chores, or to quiz the White Pines representative on What Is Reality, or to learn about the complex revolutionary history of Revachol, this section of the game is mostly a structureless morass of huge walls of text, with only occasional glimpses of meaningful character or story interactions between. It becomes extremely tedious, especially if played for more than an hour or so a day.

Disco Elysium is overwritten. I’m sure there are some players who take great delight in sifting through endless question-asking about a fake world that is never going to get another game, and that’s fine, but I’m not one of them. I would much rather learn about Revachol through the natural course of the story, such as you do at the end of the game. Quizzing NPCs about history and geography is not compelling by comparison.

But the ending is still magnificent, and despite having a few rough (and, it must be said, largely optional) stretches, the game is gravid with memorable moments. Disco Elysium is not afraid to let the player have fun. Sing karaoke. Find ridiculous clothes. Say insane things. Do drugs. Meet interesting people. Set things on fire. Most games wouldn’t let you wear the murdered mercenary’s combat armor, because that’s farcical. But this game is different. That is half of its magic, and that holds up.

So I can report that time has not changed my opinion on the story overall. It’s still brilliant, and it’s still too slow (in a few places). But that’s fine. It’s easy enough to know when something will or won’t be relevant, and spacebar is extremely effective at skipping through walls of text when you’re getting bored.

But what about its design?

Disco Elysium has no combat. Its mechanics are skill checks and map exploration. Earn XP by completing quests and talking to NPCs. Most dice rolls, which are determined by 2d6 plus modifiers, can be retried by adding another point into the skill in question: there are six per each of the four stats, for a total of twenty-four (though several are mostly or exclusively passive).

I was deep into my tabletop RPG phase in 2019, and I recall being frustrated that simple RNG was the best Disco Elysium’s designers had come up with for conflict resolution. Removing combat served the game well, but nothing took its place; there is no player skill required, not even really reading comprehension, to beat this game. If you exhaust every dialogue tree in order from top to bottom, you will solve the case. That is all it takes.

I thought something more abstract could have been designed to represent social “combat,” or to add skill back into the equation. Real gameplay could have made a huge difference and turned those dull middle stretches into more than what they are.

I’m not as convinced that it matters anymore. The skill checks are fine for what Disco Elysium is—an exercise in incredible writing. But its greater RPG mechanics leave much to be desired. The white check retry system has bizarre incentives; you should never invest your points into anything until you’ve failed a test. Then you should try it once, exit out, invest a point, try it again, etc. The game is screeching at you to do this, and the huge number of skills necessitates it. In this sense there are no builds in Disco Elysium, but only permanent upgrade-scars left on Harry by his retry tokens.

This is a very strange system. It does everything in its power to encourage savescumming. If you’ve invested three points into Pain Endurance just for this one check, and the odds of success in totality were something like 98.7%, you will probably not accept failure if it comes. The investment of resources was simply too high for that.

I dislike Disco Elysium’s attitude toward failure more generally. When you fail a roll, the game punishes you with damage to your health pools—while also preventing you from getting what you want. The game has no concept of “failing forward.” Surely health should be a resource spent to achieve desired outcomes and mitigate RNG, not simply a way to be punched while down? Either damage me and give me what I came for, or keep it from me and do nothing else. But don’t punish me for trying.

DE always punishes you for trying. A better system of resource management could have eliminated white checks, sped the game up, and eliminated the incentive to reload saves so often. That “failure” equals “you do not get what you want, period” is a D&Dism that had no reason to be carried over into a system like Disco Elysium, which really has more in common with a Powered by the Apocalypse game in its dice engine. Failure should be its own punishment, especially when it can come despite doing everything right.

There are many people online who will argue that the game is “just as fun” if you always accept failure and never reload. They’ll claim it doesn’t matter if your progress is blocked. Things are better sometimes when you don’t get what you want.

This might be true for some games. There are places where it probably is even true in Disco Elysium. But for the most part, I don’t see it. Leaving aside the numerous places where you will instantly be killed for choosing the wrong option or failing the wrong test, there are countless checks that are virtually mandatory for anything resembling a positive outcome, where failure will result in less game. Missing an entire plot-vital reed-related encounter at the game’s climax due to RNG is not “just as interesting” as the alternative. That you can roll snake eyes despite having 99% odds to succeed (like I did last night) is like shit in the wound. Why wouldn’t you reload that? There has to be a better solution than leaving it all up to RNG. Baldur’s Gate 3’s inspiration system is one good way to help mitigate problems like this.

The closest thing to a challenge component that Disco Elysium has is dressing up HDB in the correct wardrobe for the task at hand and making sure his stats are arrayed correctly before engaging in a conversation. Your spec barely matters, because so many bonuses are available through clothes and context and drugs that skills are irrelevant.

There is joy in changing Harry’s hat, but it’s also tedious. By the end of the game, continuously sifting through 40+ articles of clothing whenever the odds are beneath 70% is exhausting.

This all could have been avoided with better design. A system could have been devised to invert the bonuses. Modifiers should have been applied after a roll, not before, so the player could always know whether it was worth spending time climbing through menus before he started doing it. XP could have been turned into a direct resource, because let’s face it: that’s already what it is. This would have eliminated so many of DE’s strange incentives and made for a much better mechanical experience.

But that’s something to ruminate on for future RPGs made in Disco Elysium’s mold. Ultimately, reloading a save only takes a moment. The systems do work adequately for what is effectively a very fancy choose-your-own-adventure game with expensive graphics. Dragon Age: Origins, New Vegas, and Pillars of Eternity 2 also fail colossally in systems design, so it’s not fair to linger overmuch on what are minor demerits to Disco Elysium’s immensely strong overall showing.

So the core systems aren’t stellar, but Martinaise is a fantastic environment. Traversing its streets is sometimes frustrating, but atmosphere seeps from every gutter like the odor from a hanged man’s eyeballs. There is a strong tactile sense to the interactivity of the world. Picking up coins makes a satisfying clink. Tapping thought bubbles causes a gratifying scribble. You can jog from the eastern Dockyard to the western Lighthouse in two or three minutes, but everything between feels dense, like there’s always more to find if you learn something new. You will never get tired of this map.

Worlds like these, small, refined, and tightly interactive, are what more games should aim for. Density of content is superior to breadth, always. The environment is what makes exploring for clues and traveling between dialogues fun, and it’s why Disco Elysium is, definitively, still a game. The animators, artists, and level designers did an excellent job.

Despite my few reservations, the only people I would not recommend to play Disco Elysium are the illiterate. But The Final Cut version now has full voice acting, so even they don’t have that much of an excuse. It’s a toweringly intelligent game, with excellent characters and more than its share of unforgettable moments. It excels precisely because its designers were not afraid to let their creativity go berserk and did not hesitate to include the strange, the surreal, the imaginative, or the challenging.

It’s honestly shocking that it was ever made. That a few guys working with Unity could throw a game like this together in their garage is believable, but Disco Elysium is not that. It’s a high-budget, well-polished AA cRPG. The quality of its writing is vastly superior to any other video game on the market, and in that regard it has held up perfectly over the last five years. Nothing made since has come close. I doubt anything ever will.

You owe it to yourself to give it a try. And if you find it occasionally overwritten, like I do, don’t be afraid to skim and skip the sidequests. No one will ever know.

Note: This article was written during Hades II’s early access period. Much about the game has changed, and I haven’t gone back to play it again. I can’t say whether or not my criticism holds up, but I gather from what I hear that it does.

I received the first Hades for free as a promotion on the Epic Games Store in late 2018. I played some of it, decided to wait until its full release, and returned in 2020 to find one of the best games ever made. Although I don’t play many brawlers and generally dislike Rogue-likes, I thought Supergiant had managed to seamlessly wed narrative and systems design into a brilliant, if slightly tedious, indie-action game.

I’ll never forget the day I reached the true ending. I was at the end of my tenth run, and I was sick of the game. I wanted to see what happened. I cared deeply for Zagreus; I had grown desperate to find out what would happen between him and Persephone. But I couldn’t take another clear of Elysium again. It was driving me mad. I prepared to face Hades with Exagryph and told myself, “This is it. Win or lose. I’m done after this. I quit.”

…and that was the run Hades stepped aside, the final cutscene played, and the credits rolled.

That final scene, where Persephone decides to return to Hades, made the toil of so many escapes worth it. Hades found a way to create total harmony between the characters, their arcs, the story, and the gameplay, so that all could exist within the same world, justified for the same reasons, at the same time, and thus come to the same resolution. It was designed in totality: the narrative goal is to reach Persephone, which is to reach the end of the dungeon, which is the player’s goal, which is ever-resetting because Zagreus can never truly escape the Underworld, which facilitates endless gameplay, which focuses everything back in on your home base, because the stakes are so low that your friends (and family) can be the antagonists that you’re facing down. Everything works together to create the ultimate effect. Hades is a truly brilliant game.

So I had to buy Hades II

I knew I wasn’t going to be able to wait. Once everyone started talking about Hades II, I had to pick it up for myself. I heard that it was even better than the previous game. I heard that there was no reason to wait for it to exit Early Access.

Over the last week, Supergiant has received infinitely more playtesting and feedback than it ever could have through QA. This inevitably means that, in two years, Hades II will be a better game for Early Access. Unfortunately, the price is that those of us who chose not to wait have received a much worse experience. Hades II is unfinished. It lacks content and feels very rough around its edges. It is currently without an ending and loaded with placeholder art. I have no way of knowing what will or won’t change, and so I’m reluctant to speak on anything related to the gameplay. Who knows what it will be like by the time the full version comes out. I think it needs refinement, but given Supergiant’s record, I’m confident that it will be improved over the course of development.

But the story is unlikely to be altered at this stage. And while I quickly grew used to changes to the dodge and cast mechanics, I think Hades II represents a major step backward from its predecessor in narrative design. I beat Chronos for the first time yesterday, and I’m extremely disappointed. I’d like to examine a few of the reasons why.

Tone

Hades succeeds on its tone. Zagreus’ quest to find his mother is fundamentally a no-stakes journey that facilitates infinite gameplay. He is an immortal traipsing through the realm of the dead. He has infinite time on his hands. He is harming no one and causing no lasting damage. No matter how many times he succeeds or fails at making it to the surface, every respawn makes sense, and no suffering is being caused (except, perhaps, his own). The lack of any stakes lets dialogue stay silly, characters keep laid-back, and Zagreus’ relationships with the antagonists remain intimate in a way that still makes sense in the context of the gameplay.

I love the tone of Hades. It’s cozy. It’s witty. It’s comfortable, and it’s extremely unique. It captures something about what it might really be like to be a bored god. It’s such an important part of the story. No other game has ever done anything like it.

In Hades II, you play as Melinoe, Zagreus’ younger sister. She was born shortly after the first game’s conclusion; and, following her birth, Chronos, Titan of Time, returned. He kidnapped her family, locked them away, usurped the throne of the Underworld, cast the dead back out onto the surface of the Earth, and is now waging a war against the Olympians.

Melinoe was secreted away by Hecate just as Chronos assumed power. As rightful Princess of the Underworld, she is now the gods’ only hope of defeating Time.

I hope you can detect the slight increase in stakes between original and sequel.

Melinoe is not just fighting for herself, or her family. She isn’t just fighting for the Underworld. She isn’t just fighting for the order of the gods, or the Olympians, or humanity. Essentially, all of order and existence rests on her shoulders. The stakes could not possibly be any higher.

We have gone from an edgy teenage god looking for his mom to a chosen one saving all of existence.

The tone has changed.

I hated this immediately and was never soothed. In abstract there is nothing wrong with going in a different direction for a sequel, but as a fan of the first game, it feels like a betrayal. The characters I loved from the first game have been removed, and are not only absent, but are apparently in torment, and every moment of my failure prolongs their suffering. As if death didn’t feel bad enough already!

Melinoe is a goddess, and it’s fine for her to be important. But you can get a story about being a chosen one in any standard fantasy game. Hades was unique in its family-driven mundanity. It is an Olympic long jump backward to turn it into something so gritty in such a generic way. Worse, it turns the story from cozy-and-relaxing to very-very-stressful, and that’s not what I wanted from this series at all.

But there are two more insidious issues with the ludicrous upping of stakes, beyond my personal distaste:

1. It ruins the structure of the dungeon loop;

and,

2. The writers no longer know how to manage the tone of the characters and the setting.

Consider Megaera in the first game. You fight her again, and again, and again, because Hades tells her to stop you every time you go to escape, and usually she fails. She’s just doing her job. She doesn’t have anything against you. Her boss wants you to stay home; you want to get past her. You fight.

Then, afterward, you grab a coffee together. No hard feelings. It’s a great relationship, justified by the story, the setting, and the gameplay.

Now consider Hecate. She plays the role of Meg in Hades II and is the first boss. She claims to be “testing” you, on every single run.

Every.

Single.

Run.

This would make more sense if Melinoe wasn’t an immortal goddess for whom failure has no cost but time. But once you can breeze through the game up to Chronos, doesn’t it seem rather counterintuitive for Hecate to be draining your valuable resources like Death Defiance when she herself is the one who wants you to defeat Chronos?

“I’m sorry, Headmistress. I would have saved the universe. I got him down to 3% HP that last time. But you killed me in our first fight and used one of my Death Defiances. Guess we should’ve skipped the duel, huh?”

(this actually happened to me)

Why doesn’t Hecate pick me up and place me at the boss I’ve been struggling with, if killing Chronos is so important? Couldn’t she give me a bit more of a push? The same is true for every god. Why are they only offering boons, when ALL OF ETERNITY is at stake?

The first game never raised this question, because the answer was no one cares. Zagreus’ journey was his own. No one else had a stake in it. The gods threw you their boons because they were bored. But that cannot possibly be the reply when the gates to the Underworld itself are cast open.

The tonal issues seep down into the character and dialogue. I think that, for a game that takes itself so seriously, Hades II is bizarrely silly. Let’s look at the boss roster:

In Hades, you fight:

1. The Furies

2. The Lernaean Bone Hydra

3. Theseus and the Bull

4. Hades

These bosses all make sense within the setting and all take themselves relatively seriously. But in Hades II, you fight:

1. Hecate

2. The pop-rock band Scylla and the Sirens

3. Cerberus

4. Chronos himself

Do you notice something out of place?

Scylla and the Sirens are absolutely ridiculous. They’re charming, at least at first, but how do they fit alongside the others? They sing the song “I Am Gonna Claw Out Your Eyes (And Drown You)” and giggle as you do battle. They don’t take themselves seriously. They are, literally, a joke.

I get what they were going for. Someone at Supergiant thought: Sirens are from Greek mythology, in mythology they sing songs, popstars sing songs, so what if we have sirens who are a pop band be our bosses?

It’s a funny joke. But that’s all it is. It makes no sense in the context of the world, and it doesn’t fit the tone. The first game might have been able to pull off something like this, given that it’s a much less serious game overall, but you’ll notice that it doesn’t try (except, perhaps, with the shades goofing around back at Hades). The bosses take themselves seriously. All of the main characters do. So why doesn’t Scylla? And why are they serving Chronos, anyway? Does this make any sense at all?

This really bothers me.

Besides being bizarrely punctuated, the dialogue in Hades II remains good. But it is tonally disjointed in a way that the first game never was. It was fine before when Poseidon was nothing but a dudebro caricature, because he didn’t need to be anything more than that: he is Poseidon, King of the Brocean. But when the story is so grimdark and serious, this characterization becomes ridiculous. It begins to feel like the gods helping Melinoe aren’t taking her quest seriously, which, in turn, makes it feel like I shouldn’t take it seriously. But when the stakes are so high, if I shouldn’t take the quest seriously, why am I playing at all?

I appreciate that Supergiant mixed up the formula. They didn’t want to do the same thing over again, and I’m glad that they attempted to grow the structure of Hades into something new. But I don’t think they’ve done a good job so far. The tone, one of the first game’s strongest elements, perhaps its strongest element of story, has been taken away, and instead we’ve received something much more generic, with a lot of strange inconsistencies.

Character & Plot

At the start of the story, we learn everything that we need to know about Chronos. Then, run after run after run, we never learn anything new. If, at the moment you sat down to play Hades II, you predicted that you would kill Chronos, and then have to kill him a bunch more times for some reason… you were correct.

I mean literally for some reason. Hecate isn’t sure. But she’s confident that if you keep doing it, maybe, at some point, she’ll figure it out.

I knew that, in order to learn more about Persephone, I had to keep reaching her, over and over again, until she finally caved in. I knew that Hades would try to stop me each time, and so I would have to fight him every time. But what is there to the goal of reaching Chronos? What’s going to change? Why should I care? What do I gain with each successive victory?

Hades II has no sense of narrative progress. At no point in my 16 hours of playing Hades II did I discover anything about the characters or the story. I understood everything at the start, and I had the same understanding at the end. No twist ever came to disrupt what I thought I knew. No revelation ever recontextualized what had come before. No one was ever shown to have been truly behind the scenes. I killed Chronos, and I was told to do it again, for some reason. That was it.

Obviously the game isn’t complete. But really. That’s it?

There’s a ton of dialogue to find with the various characters. There are interactions to be had. But Hades II is plagued with this problem. Time and time again you’ll hear a few lines from a god when receiving his or her boon, and each time there will be some utterly vapid commentary: “Oh, you’re battling Chronos’ minions, eh? I am, too!” Always it will be phrased in some new way, but it’s inevitably the same.

This dialogue tells us nothing. It’s just filler. It says nothing about the story, the relationships, or the world. You could cut it out and lose nothing; and once it stops playing, you’ll actually be relieved.

I had the same problem with the first game. It hasn’t been rectified this time around.

So much of the game suffers from this. I go to camp and see that Nemesis has something new to say:

“You got pretty far last time. Just watch out. I’m better than you.”

“I’m sure you are, Nemesis. But I’m going to kill Chronos first.”

“Huh. Yeah right.”

“Death to Chronos.”

Every conversation is the same. They’re all to this formula. Occasionally there might be some flicker of character buried within the dialogue, but for the most part the interactions are totally vapid. They feel like filler. I found that I quite liked Odysseus, but of all the times I talked to him, he only really said anything when we took a bath together. A long-running gag in the first game is that Charon talks only in groans; here, Melinoe can apparently understand him, and talks back to him like he’s actually saying something worth listening to. But he’s not. It’s just another conversation without any substance.

It’s one thing to experience this in camp. But when it comes to major story beats, it’s unacceptable. You might expect that each encounter with Chronos he reveals more and more of his plans; in fact, he says nothing but some new vapid threat.

And maybe this is just Early Access. Maybe it’s all Early Access. But if Supergiant felt like their game was good enough to sell, then I feel like it should be good enough to play. And this is not good enough.

Hades makes a small reappearance. I’m sure we’ll see more of him down the line. Zagreus and Persephone do not. I find this extremely disappointing and borderline unacceptable. The absence of the first game’s characters is a major source of disappointment. These things are probably subject to change, but who knows how many more years of EA we can expect before we actually see Zag or Persephone again.

Nemesis is a catastrophe of a character. She has none of Meg’s charm. Despite being an ally, she appears sometimes to steal your rewards, rob your coinpurse, and make your life worse in every way. It’s ironic, and perhaps a lesson in game design, that this has made me loathe her far more than the literal homicidal boss who fights you time and time again in the first game. I cannot stand her, and I wish that I could kill her.

Maybe it’s fitting that Nemesis is my nemesis. But I don’t think it’s what they were going for.

I do not know how I feel about Melinoe herself. I love her voice actress, and in her few moments of relaxation, such as her bath with Odysseus, I found her to be very charming. But she’s mostly edgy, serious, and determined. How can she be anything else? So much rides on her shoulders, she can’t afford to be witty or casual about anything. Her life demands seriousness. It would be bizarre if she were written any other way. The most that I can say is that she lacks Zagreus’ effortless charisma, and it’s hard not to miss his boyish charm. He felt much more human to me, and far more relatable.

But I’m certain that I dislike Chronos as a villain. He comes across like a Boomer who wandered out of the old folks' home in the sky; his spindly, geriatric art is laughable, and his condescending voice would befit a cancer patient, rather than the Lord of Time himself. He is far more grating than intimidating.

Hades was a fantastic antagonist. You understood what he wanted, why he wanted it, and he was always there to talk to after a battle. But Chronos is enigmatic, confusing, and boring. He isn’t fun to hate, and he isn’t interesting to learn about (if there’s anything to learn at all). He is, by far, the game’s weakest link.

Disappointment Is Subjective

Judging by Hades II’s reception so far, I would be willing to guess that many of my complaints are not shared by the playerbase at large. Most players probably don’t spend hours thinking about how dying to Cerberus means that 500 Spartan children will now have to be slaughtered by ghosts in the fields of Thessaly, or how that bath with Odysseus was paid for by Zagreus’ agonized screams.

And in a lot of games, I can put that kind of stuff out of my head, too. But Supergiant has largely built its reputation on ludonarrative consonance. Their games excel at wedding gameplay to narrative. This is why I find it extremely disappointing that they have gone in what I feel to be an ill-conceived direction for Hades II. It isn’t a bad game by any stretch. There is good stuff tucked away within it, and it will get better throughout Early Access. Maybe all of my issues will be resolved—although I doubt it. But it’s undoubtedly a much messier game than its predecessor, which excelled precisely because its narrative design was so tightly focused around the central, personal journey of Zagreus, and not some ridiculously huge high-stakes fantasy world-saving quest.

I’ve uninstalled it already. I don’t want to touch this game again until its full release, although I fear that might be three or four years from now. I’ll reexamine this review then and adjust my thoughts accordingly.

From where I sit now, I’m certain that Hades II will ultimately be a decent, maybe even great, game. But I doubt its story will ever come anywhere near the splendor of the last game.

Famously, Naughty Dog creative director Neil Druckmann once proclaimed, “We don’t use the word ‘fun' [for The Last of Us].”

This would prove to be the rallying cry for The Last of Us: Part II apologists, in essence if not literally. What, you don’t like having your favorite characters tortured to death in prolonged cutscenes by brand new characters? You …

Read more

Nearly two years ago I reviewed the first chapter and Early Access version of Blood West, a weird Western Immersive Sim-like. I avoid EA games as a general rule and strenuously avoid reviewing anything still in beta, but I made a sole exception for Blood West. That original release in February of 2022 was polished, tight, and glorious; it gave me everything I wanted out of the intersection between my favorite genre of fiction and my favorite style of video game. Chapter 1 alone was my GotY last year.

The full game was supposed to release by October 2022. Instead, only Chapter 2 came out, and on Halloween—they cut it rather close.

Chapter 2 was not my GotY. I made it to the end on three occasions, and every time my save file was corrupted in one way or another. On my first attempt I made it to the chapter’s boss, only to find him stuck in place and invulnerable. When I reloaded, every NPC in the game had disappeared. My second try was thwarted when I marathoned the first two chapters, only to have the game crash a few minutes before I summoned the currently available final boss. This was the point when I learned Blood West keeps no autosaves. If you crash or the power cuts off and you haven’t exited the game once during your run, your entire save will be gone.

On my third try, I saved and quit after a few hours of play. Next morning, when I sat down to continue, I realized that the file had been eaten by Humanpedes. It was no longer in my Documents folder.

To say this experience soured me on Blood West would be to say far too little. But Early Access is Early Access, as they say, and while I contemplated venting my frustrations on this blog, I held off. I would wait until the game’s full release and amend my review then.

That was over a year ago. It has taken thirteen months (and a few days) for Chapter 3 to arrive, and with it comes the game’s full release. Now it is time to determine whether Blood West has lived up to its potential.

The review that follows is quite harsh. I haven’t offered much praise, but that’s only because I offered so much of it in my last article. Bear that in mind.

What’s Different?

Most of my pre-review stands. Almost nothing has changed in the map and mechanics, which speaks to the immense polish with which Blood West first entered Early Access. The skill system has been revamped and lootable safes have been added to the map, but that’s all that I noticed. The biggest difference is narrative; the voice of the protagonist has been replaced with Stephen Russell (he of Thief fame, among many other games).

I praised the original VA extensively last time. His gruff, laconic commentary on the gameplay elevated Blood West from great to excellent. It is very sad to see him go. I love Russell, but he doesn’t compare. His performance is exaggerated and almost gonzo. The lines also seem different, and they play far too often compared to before (although line frequency can be changed in the options menu).

The old actor was much better for the part.

Chapter 1 remains otherwise phenomenal. Every pixel of the map is packed with something to find. The encounters are brilliantly designed, and the atmosphere captures the taste and grit of choking on traildust—plus monsters—as well as standing on the streets of Tombstone would. Taken on its own, this may be the best Western game ever made, and would make a brilliant stand-alone pocket ImSim. Chapter 1 is worth the $20 price tag.

As for the rest…

One of my concerns in Early Access was how an Immersive Sim like this would extend its progression systems to triple its length. Would there be enough new guns? Enough new artifacts and skills? I wondered if the next two parts of this game could ever match up to what I’d already played.

I was right to be concerned. Chapters 2 and 3 are good, but they are thinly stretched. Neither recaptures what makes Chapter 1 so resplendent.

I criticized Early Access for being too easy near its end. Perhaps to counterbalance this, the developers have nerfed many of the skills, vastly reduced the player’s upper health limit, and generally increased the game’s difficulty. Chapter 1 still feels fair, but 2 and 3 do not. Death often comes instantly after a small mistake, such as missing a headshot when attacking from stealth. Such deaths rarely feel earned.

I think Blood West was a stronger game overall, even if easier, when the player had access to a larger health pool and could take more hits before dying—and therefore earning a Soul Flaw.

I was ambivalent on the death mechanics originally, but having now played the full game, I believe Soul Flaws to be completely pointless. Death is its own punishment now that enemies respawn on rest, and the strange way by which the Flaws compound creates bizarre incentives: you can’t get rid of a Flaw until it manifests as a Curse, which requires you to die three times. But each death along the way to the third has some minor detriment, while death otherwise has no consequences (except partial respawns). Thus the logical thing to do upon dying once is to go commit suicide two times, then talk to a totem.

I tried not to do this. Instead I stuck to removing my Flaws with Purple Revival from the traders, which basically makes the whole system trivial anyway.

I like that this system fits into the narrative. But I don’t like anything else about it.

More broadly, the Souls-like respawn system adds nothing to Blood West. Chapters 2 and 3 are both enormous compared to 1, but each has only a single totem. This is bizarre. The game would have been better off with quicksave functionality, like every other ImSim.

Ultimately the real consequence of death is that you have to run back across the map to where you were, killing and evading hordes of the same enemies, just to get to where you had been before making a small mistake—a missed shot, a wrong step, a bad ammo choice. This adds some weight to survival, I suppose, but while I appreciate the need for meaningful challenge in systems-driven games like these, the challenge of Blood West has no rhythm to it. The entire game is the same note: watch the detection meter, stealth kill monsters, aim for the head, repeat. The intensity never goes up or down. It’s always the same. There are no zones where exploration is safe, there are no puzzles, there’s no platforming, there are few environmental hazards: everything is about sneaking and killing.

Later in the game, when the enemies get too big and tanky to stealth kill with your knife, it’s mostly just a shooter—a lot like the recent System Shock.

That was fine when the game was only five hours long. But now, in total, it’s somewhere between twenty and thirty.

Blood West does not have the mechanical complexity of a thirty-hour game. It starts to get frustrating somewhere in Chapter 2, and it doesn’t get fun again until late in Chapter 3, once you’ve unlocked the highest tier of weapons and artifacts. Then Blood West becomes a badass Western/horror FPS, and it’s great. But there’s a long slog in the middle. This is an unfortunate example of an excellent game that has been stretched too thin.

Take the towns. In Chapter 1, there are a handful of locations with a handful of buildings. There’s something interesting everywhere. No building is empty, and when you stumble onto a new structure, you’ll feel a pang of excitement to see what’s inside. You know it will be good.

The town in Chapter 2 has twenty buildings at least. If I found anything memorable in one of them, I can’t remember it. The good loot is all inside the nearby steamboat. You’ll feel compelled to explore every shop and apartment building lest you miss something valuable, but time after time, you won’t find anything at all. If there is real loot within one of those buildings, the chance that you miss it is extremely high.

This gets even worse in Chapter 3. In the various settlements there are rooms with literally nothing inside, except monsters.

If a room has no loot in a game like Blood West, it shouldn’t exist. I wasted hours (and hundreds of bullets) exploring copy-pasted, strangely box-shaped environments for almost no benefit.

Inventory management more broadly is one of the game’s major flaws. It’s inoffensive at first but becomes more murderous with each passing hour. By mid-Chapter 2 it is frustrating, and by the final boss, it is agony. Unlike Weird West, which had no interesting loot at all, Blood West is full of fun stuff to find and steal; this is why the game has such a strong drive to explore. But fumbling around with backpacks inside of satchels inside of backpacks is never fun, in any game. Swapping between weapons, playing inventory Tetris, rotating artifacts, replacing spent Molotovs and dynamite in the “accessory” bar, moving ammo around, and fidgeting with the stash back at camp will take up a considerable amount of playtime, and ultimately could have been alleviated with more creative gameplay design.

I’ve played games with much worse inventory systems than Blood West. But what if, instead of three accessory slots, we could press H for bandages, V for Molotovs, G for dynamite sticks, C for healing potions, and drink booze straight from the inventory?

The worst part of inventory management is consumables. They take up a lot of space while almost never being useful. Cigars and various alcohols always come, like in a Fallout game, with severe withdrawal symptoms—often so severe that there’s no choice but to stop playing for three minutes while they wear off. But the primary effects are never strong or long-lasting enough to warrant such detriments, and they become less worthwhile as you gain levels.

I really did not need these constantly cluttering the space I’d reserved for monster intestines.

And as for monster intestines, I realize that it’s less immersive, but couldn’t the monsters have simply carried cash instead of intestines that I have to lug back to traders every few minutes?

Small adjustments could have made massive quality-of-life improvements to the later stages of Blood West’s campaign.

The developers clearly felt like they needed more in each new part of their game. But they didn’t. Chapter 1’s strength is that the map is small and packed with fun stuff to see and kill, as I wrote last year. You walk five feet and you’re in the next area and there are more things to do. Then you discover that there’s an entire second map beneath the one you’re standing on!

Chapter 1 epitomizes depth in an open-world game.

It wouldn’t be fair to call the rest of the game shallow, but the content is much less dense. Moving between zones takes longer. The zones have comparable amounts of loot spread out within larger areas. Death is more frustrating. The quest objectives are fewer and farther between, and entire areas are devoid of mission goals (whereas every zone in Chapter 1 has gold to find somewhere. That structure is severely missed in Chapter 2 especially, where the story is extremely weak).

One gets the sense that an influx of cash at the EA release emboldened the developers to make their game bigger than they had first intended. That would explain why it took more than a year longer than first stated for the full release, despite minimal changes to core gameplay in that time. Personally, I wish they’d tried to keep their game small.

It Gets Better

I nearly gave up in early Chapter 3. But I’m glad I didn’t, because the game does get better. The late-game weapons—a revolving rifle, a chain revolver, and a lever-action shotgun—are the pinnacle of cowboy violence in gaming. Combined with new artifacts, these weapons become obscenely powerful, and the relative squishiness of the player character becomes less of an issue. Retreading old ground is quicker and less frustrating when major enemies can be instakilled with a headshot and needn’t be sneaked past any longer. The side quests are compelling, and I was excited enough by the promise of new stuff that I endured the inventory systems and thoroughly looted the entire map.

I didn’t end up needing it. I had hoped the final boss would be a righteous onslaught of a million undead soldiers; I had hundreds of bullets saved up for this moment.

Instead, I found a purple dragon on a hill. I killed him instantly with two headshot criticals from my rifle.

Oops.

Conclusion

Blood West is too long. The chapters didn’t need to be as protracted as they are. I’m still not convinced there needed to be three chapters at all—two, with equal polish, and more time spent on systems, would have been good enough. But it’s doubtless that my experience was significantly sullied by my very bad time with Chapter 2 in Early Access.

You should buy Blood West. It’s good, it’s cheap, and it’s probably the only Western Immersive Sim that will ever be made. It could have been better, but let’s just hope that gives Hyperstrange a good excuse to make a sequel.

Every year, a long-awaited, highly scored AAA title like Spider-Man 2 (2023) comes out. I play it, and I hate it, and I am forced to ask myself a question:

Why do I still play games?

Despite a tidal wave of critical acclaim, the writing nauseates me. The gameplay bores. The world aggravates. Nothing stands out from the miasma of mediocrity, and I’m left angry and irritated, rather than entertained and excited.

After Hogwarts Legacy, System Shock, Starfield, and Spider-Man 2 this year, I was beginning to wonder if I had simply aged out of singleplayer games. Why do I keep playing them if they, inevitably, make me annoyed?

Then, on a whim, with no expectations at all, I buy something like Robocop: Rogue City, and I remember why. I remember why I bought a PS5. I remember why I’ve always loved games.

Rogue City

RoboCop: Rogue City is a singleplayer first-person shooter/action/investigation roleplaying game where you assume the role of Alex Murphy, the RoboCop, as he fights crime on the streets of Detroit. Peter Weller reprises his eponymous role from the original film; despite being the only returning cast member, the story takes place shortly after RoboCop 2, and features the film series’ characters extensively.

Rogue City begins as a shooter. A shooter is more or less all I expected going in. Yet as the game expands, it becomes readily apparent that shooting is only one small part of the experience. RoboCop is, after all, a cop, and cops have plenty of duties beyond violence.

Ticket cars parked in violation of traffic laws. Fine homeless men for public intoxication. Gather clues, take statements, and rescue kittens from burning buildings. And then, once all else is taken care of, break out your Auto 9 and get sweeping.

The parallels between Rogue City and this year’s earlier Aliens: Dark Descent are spooky. Both are European-developed licensed games based on 1980s American action movies; both are startlingly original; and both are the synthesis of many different types of games. For Rogue City, that synthesis might be broken down like this:

Rogue City is like L.A. Noire if Cole Phelps were a SPARTAN super soldier. It combines the hub-based level design of Deus Ex 3 with the linear level structure of Wolfenstein: The New Order, where there’s always a story-focused home base to return to after a mission has been completed. Like Deus Ex, it’s a roleplaying game, with an interactive narrative, upgrades, and skill trees, but the primary gameplay loop comes down to blasting the shit out of creeps, three bullets at a time, basically like Halo.

And it’s fucking awesome.

I’ve played games “like” Rogue City before. Halo, L.A. Noire, the new Wolfensteins, and Deus Ex. It’s highly evocative of Deus Ex 3 in particular, as you play a cyborg cop working for a private company in Detroit. DE3 stole from RoboCop; now RoboCop steals back from Deus Ex.

But much as Dark Descent created an original game through the fusion of several different genres, RoboCop: Rogue City takes ideas from these franchises and remixes them into something extremely unique. I had played Spider-Man 2 at least twice before I loaded it up on my PS5—but I’ve never played Rogue City before.

Most missions are centered around a hub. Murphy is sent to a neighborhood, a hospital, or an old factory, and there he must Serve the Public Trust while Protecting the Innocent. You’ll have to look for clues regarding your main quest, to take down the New Guy in town, or simply wander around for a while and hope there’s a crime somewhere to interrupt.

Don’t worry. It’s Detroit. You’ll find one soon.

I was repeatedly amazed by the level design in the hubs. There are mountains of events and conversations to find, all of which can be easily missed without a bit of police vigilance. Major side quests are always placed at the exact right location on the map so that they are discovered naturally while avoiding backtracking, yet aren’t shown off to such an extent that they feel forced down your throat. This, combined with the feeling that there’s always something out there to find, lends Rogue City a sense of real exploration.

I always wanted to look around, because I knew I would find something worth finding. Meaningful upgrades, engaging narrative, or more parts for my pistol; nothing could be taken for granted. All could be missed.

Please contrast this with Spider-Man 2.

There’s a bit too much wandering around at times, and I think there could’ve been fewer quests in some of the zones. And while open-ended, the hubs are nothing like what you’d find in a Deus Ex or Dishonored game; they’re straightforward and, if not linear, then the next closest thing.

But they fit neatly within the narrative. Its semi-openness enhances the main quest rather than distracting from it. These things feel as though they belong together.

The gunplay is what it should be. RoboCop is a dick-blasting badass, capable of sustaining immense damage from small arms fire. Four unique abilities can be unlocked through the skill trees—an overshield, a charge, a stun, and bullet time—but shooting is mostly as simple as aiming and pulling the trigger.

Uniquely, the weapon system of the game only allows you to pick up one gun at a time. The other is your Auto 9, which must always stay equipped. The Auto 9 can be upgraded through circuit boards and a small puzzle-ish minigame, which allows it to take on the role of a sniper pistol, a submachine pistol, an assault pistol, or, in the end, a grenade launcher pistol.

I can’t think of another game that’s done its weapon management like this. It’s reminiscent in places of Republic Commando, but really quite different.

The Auto 9 sends enormous jets of blood and gore. It’s reliable, and with infinite ammo, it’s your main weapon for all scenarios. The additional weapons that can be found on corpses are more varied: the shotguns are worthless, while the Desert Eagle is ludicrously powerful. The assault rifles never have enough ammo, and the snipers are hard to land hits with.

But when the end of the game comes about and you find yourself picking up a Cobra Assault Cannon and getting to work, you’ll be content with how the weapons shake out.

What makes the gunplay stand out despite its simplicity is the visceral feedback of the violence. Shoot a thug in the arm, blow it off. He’ll stand around for a while, screaming, “Oh my god, you shot off my arm!” before collapsing to the ground. Heads pop like balloons filled with blood. Robot enemies, like in Fallout 4, have their heads blown apart and their innards revealed with each bullet. Cover is destructible, and has a habit of blowing to pieces whenever shooting starts; I think Rogue City might have the best destructible environments of any game ever made.

In other words, the violence in this game has exactly what Starfield lacked: impact. And while there isn’t much to holding down the right trigger and blowing hordes of thugs to pieces, it is incredibly entertaining.

I’m less enthusiastic about the investigative gameplay. It’s closer to The Witcher 3 than L.A. Noire: run around, look at stuff, press X occasionally, talk to people. It’s impossible to miss anything if you look for long enough. The conversation system is also about as barebones as possible. I would analogize it to the original Deus Ex, but with more variety in voice lines.

But where Rogue City truly excels is in enemy variety. There are at least two extremely different gangs, multiple robots, and a mercenary company to fight, each with unique special enemies and their own effects and weaponry. This, more than anything else, keeps the gameplay fresh, and forces you to always adapt your strategies to the situation at hand.

Skill trees are not what I expected from this game. These upgrades are significant and gameplay-altering. Nearly all are fun and useful; the only dud is Psychology. Armor and Vitality, as well as Engineering, Focus, and Combat, all are vital to upgrade. I played on Hard, and the allure of each major node was enough to persuade me that I never wanted to miss out on XP.

Thus the skill tree lends a strong incentive to explore, which then feeds back into the narrative and the primary gameplay loop.

This is what designers should be striving to do.

RoboCop: The RPG

In addition to all it’s doing above, Rogue City somehow manages to also be an excellent roleplaying game.

From the very start, you’ll be expected to make decisions for Murphy. Are you Murphy, or are you RoboCop? Are you a man, or are you a machine? One significant story element concerns which candidate you’ll endorse for mayor, and countless small decisions—about whether to uphold the law or let an offender go—pervade the entire game.

For a first-person shooter, the story is astonishingly reactive to your choices. What you say and do will make an impact by the end. The main narrative doesn’t branch, but the sidequests do, and you have a major say in what shape the people of Detroit are in by the end of the story. The post-game resolution slideshow a la Fallout somehow manages to be infinitely more satisfying than the ending of Baldur’s Gate 3, and the penultimate mission, as Murphy and I said goodbye to our friends in the police force, was absolutely rapturous.

Not that the story itself is anything brilliant. RoboCop is one of the best movies ever made, and the love the developers had for the first two movies is apparent everywhere throughout the game. There are constant references, and the environments from the first film especially have been painstakingly recreated. Walking around the police station truly feels like stepping into the original film. From Anne Lewis to the Old Man, you’ll be seeing lots of familiar faces.

But RoboCop’s unique Verhoeven style, with its distinctive dialogue, surreal wit, and biting satire, is impossible to replicate.

The writers of Rogue City made a good attempt. They’re Polish, and it shows through the dialogue: some of it is completely unintelligible, despite American VAs voicing every line. Three or four times throughout the game I heard lines that I couldn’t decipher no matter how much thinking I did, and far more frequently I found conversations to be disjointed and confusing.

These constitute a minority of the dialogues. Most of the writing is actually fairly solid, and far above average for a game of this caliber. I’m amazed at how well Murphy, Lewis, and the Old Man were captured in their speech, even if it’s not always quite right. The new original characters like Ulysses Washington are surprisingly compelling, too; I was shocked when I found myself actually caring about what happened to them (and him in particular). This is a major accomplishment for any video game.

Where the writing stumbles most is in humor. The narrative designers weren’t able to replicate Verhoeven’s jokes, and most of the comedy—although not all—falls flat.

Bad humor is usually unbearable. Rogue City’s is mostly just bizarre. The jokes are probably poorly translated from Polish, and they’re often so inept that they can only inspire laughter at the attempt.

While the dialogue varies, the performances of the main cast do not. Anne Lewis’ VA—voiced by Kosha Engler, using Nancy Allen’s likeness—is unbelievably good. Every line reading is slick and engaging. It’s some of the best voice work I’ve ever heard in a game. The same is true for the main villain and Ulysses Washington. These actors do a ton of lifting to bring the story up to near-Hollywood standards.

Side characters are more haphazardly acted. Thug enemies especially aren’t much to write about, and Peter Weller didn’t quite give the role his all—he often sounds disjointed in his responses to the other characters. But where it matters, the developers delivered.

The main storyline itself is doing its best to imitate a hypothetical third RoboCop movie starring Peter Weller. I think something more ambitious would have been better in the long run, but as a fan of the movies, Rogue City is generally successful. The plot is contrived and frustrating in places, and much of it feels like a retread of the first movie. There’s no real sense that Murphy’s arc of coming to accept his identity as a human has ever happened.

But as a standalone story of a robot cop coming to grips with his life and fighting slime, it works. The narrative flows and mostly makes sense, and the ending is absolutely hilarious. I don’t want to spoil anything more than I have already, because I really do think that any fan of the first movie should go out and buy this game right away.

And if you’re not a fan of the first movie, what the fuck is wrong with you? Go watch it and change that fact. It’ll only take you 100 minutes.

It Just Works

2023 has been a decent year for games but a bad year for technology. Every major title I’ve played this year has been marred by significant bugs.

Rogue City has its own share. But I’m happy to report that they aren’t too bad. For the most part.

I experienced no crashes and only got stuck once, after a missile from an ED-209 knocked Murphy halfway inside of a wall and I couldn’t get out. This is better than I can say for Starfield and Spider-Man 2 on both counts.

But audio issues plague the game, especially starting from about halfway through. Voices become robotic and poorly filtered. Sound cuts out and falls out of sync. Voice lines begin skipping themselves, and music overpowers speech.

This is especially notable in the hub areas. There is no ambience whatsoever in the streets of Detroit. No music. No sound. No voices, unless you come up close to an NPC and hear what he has to say. Whether it’s due to a glitch or bad design, I can’t say—but it’s shocking to walk down a dark alley without so much as crickets in the background or a dim ambient track.

A tiny amount of ambient music could have turned Rogue City into a master class in atmosphere, to rival Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines. Without it, it’s often jarring, and feels cheap.

I desperately hope this is patched, as well as the other audio issues. I have a suspicion it will be.

The graphics themselves vary. I played on PS5, exclusively on performance mode, and often had FPS drops—sometimes beneath 30, which is really unacceptable. For the most part it looked good, though, especially with reflections. The environments are detailed and look almost as bad as real-life Detroit, and for what is effectively a AA game, I was satisfied with appearances.

Buy It

Rogue City is excellent. It’s compelling and unique, and despite an outer layer of jank, has had a ton of thought put into its story, quests, and gameplay. Games like this, unpretentious and passionate, are the soul of the industry. They are the rare titles that are not afraid to be fun.

And they are fun. Everywhere you go, Rogue City simply wants to entertain. There’s no tedium. There are no real shitty minigames. There is a lot of talking, but for every word said, five bullets will be fired soon enough. The narrative is fulfilling and never depressing. It’s just fun.

By the time the end of the game comes, and you’re fending off hordes of criminal scum while the classic RoboCop theme blares, it’s impossible not to be smiling. And isn’t that what games are about?

So buy this game. I haven’t decided whether I like it more than Dark Descent yet, but it says a lot that the two are neck-and-neck in my mind for GotY. I guess it turns out that, in my heart, the only thing I love half so much as 80s action cinema is Eurojank. The two together are unstoppable.

With my next book now available on Amazon, my plan upon Starfield's release was to sit down and play it non-stop all week, then write a mega-review as I had for Baldur's Gate 3 and Aliens: Dark Descent. It has been eight years since the last singleplayer Bethesda RPG. I didn't want this chance to go to waste.

I do not like Bethesda. Fallout 3 succeeds because the designers inherited Black Isle's Van Buren documents and shamelessly stole its ideas. Fallout 4 succeeds because it's a fun looter-shooter with a good world. Oblivion and Skyrim, though, are boring, poorly designed, buggy pieces of shit, with horrific writing and even worse gameplay. Skyrim in particular is one of my least favorite RPGs.

But despite their myriad flaws, The Elder Scrolls games do have some kind of charm. It lies mostly in their sense of atmosphere. As much as I dislike TES, I can't hate it as a series. Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim have a litany of fundamental issues, but each is engrossing for at least a single playthrough of the main quest. The maps are worth exploring. The sidequests are worth doing. They are games worth playing once, if not ever again thereafter.

That's why I had a modicum of excitement for Starfield. Indeed the vast improvements in production value and gameplay design reflected in Fallout 4 made me more optimistic than was warranted. There seemed to be a trend of Bethesda's games toward genuine AAA quality from Oblivion to Skyrim to FO4. The studio was moving in a direction that actually reflected the quality of other games at a similar price tag.

Starfield is not that.

But I won't be reviewing Starfield, because after seven hours, I've given up. I hear it gets "really good" sixty or eighty hours in, but I'm convinced this is nothing but Stockholm syndrome. There is nothing to "get good" about this latest Bethesda atrocity. It is utterly without any recognizable merit whatsoever. Playing it gives me a headache; I cannot force myself to go on.

This is why.

The Outer Worlds 2.0

The Outer Worlds came out the year before I launched this blog. It is too earnest to honestly dislike, but it's a dreadful game. The narrative is repetitive, the shooting is poor, and there's no atmosphere. It feels like a Bethesda rip-off, with even lower production value. But my largest complaint at the time was that it had no soul. The world was a shallow attempt at mixing BioShock anti-capitalism, or at least anti-corporatism, with pulpy Flash Gordon-esque Fallout retrofuture. Without really understanding either aesthetic, Tim Cain & Co. at Obsidian made a game that felt like a rip-off of its own developers' previous titles. The attempts at personality and wit fell flat because the writers didn't know what they were trying to do. What do anti-corporate themes have to do with Flash Gordon retrofuture and pulp sci-fi action? How do they fit together?

They don't. The result was an RPG that has been almost entirely forgotten.

This might be a roundabout way of getting to my point, but I can think of no better way to illustrate what Starfield is like. Starfield is The Outer Worlds. If you have played the one, you have already played the other. They suffer from the same problems, in all of the same ways. The anti-corporate themes have been replaced with pretentious pseudo-spirituality, while the retrofuture aesthetic has been replaced with that of hard sci-fi, but they feel like the same games.

How does a hard sci-fi aesthetic fit into a game about killing thousands of people, zipping around the galaxy in a personal spaceship, becoming a space god, and instantly teleporting between distant star sectors?

About as well as Flash Gordon pulp fits with satire about megacorporations charging superfluous fees.

Starfield is The Outer Worlds. Both share a lack of coherence and vision. Both are dull and stale. Both feel like lifeless rip-offs of themselves, and both are agonizing to play. But while I think The Outer Worlds was a bad game overall, I can say that it, at least, tried something. It may have ended up as a dull and incoherent Yojimbo simulator, but it did have an idea of what it wanted to do. It had some personality. It had a tinge of charm, even if that charm was mostly cringe-inducing.

Starfield has no charm. Starfield is simply dreadful. Whatever advances were reflected in FO4 have been forgotten. The result is an exercise in mediocrity that is not even momentarily enjoyable to play.

Gamebryo? Gamebryno.

Red Dead Redemption 2 has no loading screens. When you encounter a cave in the wilderness, you can enter the cave without the cave needing to load. When you walk into a house, you do not need to wait ten minutes for the new environment to appear around you. And when you transition between states, you simply step over the state lines and find yourself somewhere new--you do not get taken out of the game.

Red Dead Redemption 2 came out five years ago. It is half a decade and a console generation old.

Starfield has loading screens every fifteen seconds. You must load to leave your ship. You must load to enter buildings. You must load to travel between star systems. You must load to land and load to take off. If you discover a cave while exploring a planet, you must load before you go inside.

In other words, despite having been advertised as an advance on No Man's Sky-style free-form interstellar exploration, Starfield is actually the same as every other Bethesda game.

Herein lies the root of all its problems. Starfield does not feel like its own game. It feels like a space travel mod for FO3, and I really do mean that in all respects. Encumbrance, randomly generated loot, clunky UIs, overreliance on maps and fast travel, and shoehorned in skill systems--these don't belong in Starfield. They're not systems for the game Starfield is trying to be. They're the systems of a fantasy aRPG like Oblivion.

Why haven't they been changed? I honestly don't know. I guess Bethesda didn't want to do the hard work of creating something new. But I still don't understand how this game took them so unbelievably long to develop, and at such tremendous costs, when it does absolutely nothing new.

Starfield is priced at $70, but it cannot compete with other, similar games--in any respect. It looks worse, runs worse, and has worse design than any AAA title I've ever reviewed for this blog. It does not feel like it should have come out this year. It would have been outdated in 2014.

That's really all I wanted to say. That's why I won't be finishing it, and that's why I won't be bothering to write a full review.

But Here Are a Few Examples of Why This Game Sucks Anyway

Since we're both here, though, let's point and laugh at a few of Starfield's many astonishing deficiencies.

This "dead rock" Sarah is referring to? Yeah. It's Mars. A major colonized planet. Five inches over that boulder is an entire space city. Good work, Bethesda.

"Be anything," Todd said. "Go anywhere."

I decided to be a space pirate. I robbed a store.

The clerk was invulnerable. I shot her in the head; she got right back up.

Literally every single named NPC in Starfield is invulnerable. This sometimes has hilarious side effects, such as a mission where you have to escort farmers in battle against space pirates: the farmers literally can't die, and so you literally can't lose. Just let them do all the fighting.

Why did they need me in the first place?

Here I met my parents. They were so poorly written that I decided to murder them. Unfortunately that is not allowed. Except they aren't even invulnerable. They are ghosts, phantoms, impossible to harm at all. My bullets phase straight through them.

Did anyone care? Was any effort at all put into this game?

Above you'll see the resurrected speech system from Oblivion. I tried to persuade this woman to help us, choosing the green option three times.

I failed all three times.

But I decided to reload, to try the red option instead. "Risk your life. It's going to be the adventure of a lifetime!"

*Sigh* is right.

Below we see a planetary settlement. It is washed out and hideous and lacks any atmosphere whatsoever, just like the rest of the game.

Finally, here is a screenshot of one of the game's many odious crafting mechanics. The engaging gameplay: click on things until you have enough things, then make new things. Brilliant.

But it's the little touches that really make me dislike Starfield. Take, for example, how you move when on a planet with low gravity. You might notice something strange--the animations are exactly like they are anywhere else!

Neil Armstrong worked out that skipping was the best way to travel in low-g environments way back in 1969, but I guess Bethesda has yet to catch up.

Not Even a Looter-Shooter

A lot of critics online are complaining that Starfield is too much looter-shooter, too little RPG. This is true, but I can't criticize it for that alone: FO4 is also a looter-shooter non-RPG, and I've defended it on that basis before: FO4 has good enough gameplay to make up for its horrible storytelling deficiencies.

Starfield doesn't. Not only does it have far greater storytelling deficiencies, but it also has far worse gameplay. Dozens of "critics" online have said, "Starfield has the best shooting of any Bethesda game yet!" but have provided no explanation of how this is true.

That would be because it isn't true. Starfield is a regression to Fallout 3. Its shooting sucks.

In FO4, the faces of synths would fall off every time you landed a headshot. Their armor disintegrated and was blown to bits by your bullets.

There is no locational damage on enemies in Starfield. Enemies have health bars, but their remaining HP is never indicated by their appearances.

In FO4, bullets tinkled against your power armor. You felt like a walking tank when clearing out raider encampments.

There is nothing like that in Starfield. Armor is damage padding. Every suit is a spacesuit; there are no exoskeletons (as far as I can tell).

The weapon handling animations in FO4 were incredibly smooth. Guns moved in the Sole Survivor’s hands like she was really using them.

Starfield's aim-down sight animations are like Fallout: New Vegas all over again. They feel cheap and ugly. Press RMB and the sights teleport in front of your eyes, snapping instantly into place. Weapon handling is repetitive. There is way too much reloading. Enemies are bullet sponges.

If Starfield is a looter-shooter, it's the worst one on the market. You can't disarm enemies by shooting them in the hands. You can't trip them by shooting them in the legs. You can't blow off limbs, and heads will never explode. Beyond that much, gameplay consists of nothing but standing next to generic spacer enemies, holding down the trigger, and pressing the stimpack button to stay alive.

That's all. There's nothing else. Starfield is a terrible FPS.

Starfield is the Worst Bethesda Game

I don't believe this game has any redeeming qualities. If you like the mindless exploration of space, play No Man's Sky. If you like shooting things with vaguely futuristic guns, play FO4. If you just want a repetitive RPG with a lot of stuff to do, any TES game is a better choice. And if you're desperate to play a space RPG, Mass Effect is always a good option. Mass Effect 1 and 2 do everything Starfield is trying to do, and they do it ten thousand times better.

Starfield is terrible. Starfield is The Outer Worlds, but with even worse storytelling. Don't buy this game. I deeply regret spending money on it.

Today I felt sunlight on my skin for the first time in a week, for today, after seven days of toil, I have at last completed Baldur's Gate 3. At every turn the game conspired to rob me of this victory: twice last night was my save file corrupted on the eve of triumph, yet twice did I troubleshoot and persevere. Crashes and performance issues plagued my every moment, but these were no match for my conviction.

I have won. I have finished Baldur's Gate 3. It took me seventy hours.

^{I am the 0.3%}

My thoughts on a game have never been so conflicted. When I reviewed Aliens: Dark Descent, I knew that, despite its many issues, it was an excellent experience overall. When I reviewed System Shock, I knew that, despite some virtues, it was a poor experience overall.

Baldur's Gate 3 is not so simple. It is both the most frustrating RPG I've ever played, and one of the best. It is brilliantly written in many places, and horribly written in many others. Its sidequests are among the best in the genre, but a few are undoubtedly among the worst. The faithfully adapted 5E combat far surpasses the Infinity Engine real-time system used by most other cRPGs, yet is also a slog. And while the design of the campaign is an impressive achievement, it would be no exaggeration to say my playthrough was ruined by technical issues. Not small issues as in Dark Descent, but actual game-breaking, experience-ruining bugs that almost led to my giving up.

My opinion on the game changed wildly day-by-day. Act I is extraordinary. It is perfect. Everything about it is good. Act I alone, which is what Early Access always was, is the best RPG I have ever played. I would have said as much if I'd stopped and written my review then. It would have been the most glowing recommendation I've ever given. I loved Act I.

Act II is not extraordinary. It is uneven and frustrating, with too much combat and the game's worst narrative design. Bugs made progress almost impossible, and my PC's performance was never worse. Had I stopped playing and written my review then, it would have been overwhelmingly negative, with a list of frustrations fifty pages long. I hated Act II.

But Act III is fantastic. It fails to achieve the heights of Act I, but features excellent writing, interesting side quests, and engaging combat encounters. I really liked Act III--and this is where I write my review.

Unpacking my thoughts and setting forth my criticisms will not be concise. There is much to discuss. I have paeans and dirges alike to offer, and I intend to give both. So let us waste no more time with lead-in.

Minor story spoilers should be expected to follow. I simply cannot analyze this game without giving some things away, like character names and locations. Be forewarned.

The Game

First, select your character. Like in the Divinity: Original Sin games, you can either create a custom
PC, or use one of the companions as your protagonist--a so-called 'Origin' character. Origin characters cannot be customized and have different main quests to help guide them through the story. The idea of turning NPCs into protagonists is fascinating, but BG3's strongest elements are in its relationships: if I had opted to play as Shadowheart, rather than as Shadowheart's boyfriend, my experience with the story would have likely been much less satisfying. (More on that later.)

One Origin is customizable, however: the Dark Urge. My impression is that the Dark Urge is the intended way to play the game. His story is deeply interconnected with the first two games in a way I cannot imagine being the case for any of the other Origin PCs. For that reason, I chose him for my first playthrough.

Customization is comprehensive and malleable, with no class restrictions or racial stat bonuses. You can make any character you like. A charismatic half-orc? A burly gnome? Go right ahead. Appearance options are better than average for a game like this, but still bizarrely lacking in long hairstyles.

As in Cyberpunk 2077, there is also a genital slider. As in Cyberpunk 2077, this does nothing and has no effect on gameplay or sexuality. You can choose if you want a big or small penis, circumcised or uncircumcised, and your body type needn't match your genitalia. You can also take off your underwear at any point in the game, and the underwear of any NPC, if you want to verify anything for yourself.

This is just what Baldur's Gate always needed. I don't know how I'll go back to the old games now.

Removing clothes and underwear aside, you will never actually see genitalia in your playthrough. Of the two sex scenes I received, one carefully managed camera placement so that only the slightest few pixels of my character's groin were visible at any given time. The other was audio-only.

This is, in other words, a gratuitous and pointless feature. Ironically, every woman in BG3 has the same cup size, despite breasts being visible 100% of the time.

^{Because what I always wanted in life was to see Minsc's cock. Uncircumcised, BTW.}

With your class and genitals set, you thus awaken on an Illithid spaceship. A "tadpole" has been inserted into your brain by a mindflayer. You have days before you yourself turn into a soulless, squid-faced monstrosity. Your only hope is to band together with the other Origin characters, who have all likewise been infected, to find a cure--as soon as possible.

My character started his life as a half-elf Paladin. His dark urges for murder and mayhem stood in eternal conflict with his oath to uphold goodness and justice and peace (etc.). This quickly revealed itself to be a mistake. Baldur's Gate 3's early game is marked by low attack bonuses and constant misses. I found Paladin to be unbearably frustrating, so I reclassed into Ranger.

This can be done not only for the main character, but also for any companion NPC. Here I am at level 12 turning Shadowheart, whose entire storyline is about being a Cleric of Shar, into a Druid. For 100 gold.

^{This does not affect story, as far as I can tell.}

The decision to enable so much flexibility is both bizarre and welcome. BG3 is a colossal game. Having to spend 100 hours with a character whose spec is completely fucked up is not good game design. This notion is good in principle.

But it's also strange that the barrier to reclassing is so low. It is basically free, and the NPC who offers it is in camp--so you can do it between fights, instantly, whenever taking a long rest.

It turned out to be for the better. After eight levels of Ranger, I was beginning to feel underpowered relative to the other classes. I respecialized into Ranger/Fighter, planning on going 8 Ranger / 4 Fighter.

As I realized how useless Ranger spells were, however, this quickly morphed into 4 Ranger/8 Fighter. By the end of the game I gave up on Ranger entirely, and played as an archer/dual wielder Dex-based Fighter, with no multiclass. This proved the correct decision, because I was the most tremendously overpowered character in my party. I comfortably soloed two major bosses, in a single turn, with nothing but Haste potions and my bow.

The multiclass rules work easily and intuitively. It might be possible to ruin your character with them if you aren't careful, but the affordability of resetting everything and starting over--without having to replay 90 hours of content--eliminates this risk.

Had it been up to me, I would have removed the ability to change companion NPC classes. It fucks up the story too badly and isn't necessary anyway. But such flexibility does have the advantage of allowing for more dynamic party compositions. If your favorite companions are Karlach and Lae'zel, but you're playing a Barbarian, it is obviously suboptimal to have these characters in your party. The Dragon Age games have always suffered from this problem. But if you respec Karlach into a Druid, and Lae'zel into a Monk, such a thing makes much more strategic sense.

But it really does fuck up the story.

Much like Solasta: Crown of the Magister, an excellent dungeon-delving D&D simulator released in 2021, Baldur's Gate 3 is a faithful adaptation of Dungeons & Dragons: Fifth Edition into video game format. Gone are the days of real-time translations of turn-based games; BG3 is, mercifully, completely turn-based in combat. An emphasis on environmental interactions with hundreds of spells at your disposal, to say nothing of potions and bombs, is reminiscent of Divinity: Original Sin 2, with a stronger focus on RNG.

This was clearly an attempt to capture the imagination-driven nature of a tabletop roleplaying game, and Larian did an excellent job. The openness of encounters in this game is marvelous. Sneak past enemies, ambush them, talk to them, rush in head-first, or prepare a few fireballs to incinerate them before they know you're there: Baldur's Gate 3 is basically an Immersive Sim.

But it's ultimately still burdened by the mantle of Dungeons & Dragons. The over-reliance on randomness adds nothing except a strong incentive to reload whenever things go the wrong way, while severely diluting the player's ability to manage encounters. This is exemplified nowhere better than in initiative.

Like in 5E, every entity in combat rolls initiative separately. Usually my Fighter went first while my Cleric went last. Enemies and allies would fall somewhere in the middle. But not always. Sometimes I got unlucky; everyone in my party would act after our opponents. In a fight where you're supposed to rescue an important NPC before she can be killed, this bad luck made the encounter literally impossible. She would die before I had a chance to move. There was nothing I could do.

When I reloaded an earlier save, I now rolled well on initiative, while the enemy NPCs rolled poorly. The fight was then trivially easy.

This is the case for a huge number of fights throughout the game. Going first instead of last is the difference between sleepwalking to victory and clawing desperately for every inch, especially when friendly NPCs are involved. Larian could have ameliorated this element of 5E, but they didn't: they let RNG reign.

On a more philosophical level of game design, RNG combined with readily available quickload functionality ultimately accomplishes nothing. There's a major story event that required a critical success for me to get the outcome I wanted most. It took fifty or sixty tries before I finally got it, but I wasn't going to give up until I rolled that 20.

This was pointless. If I can spend an hour savescumming the optimal outcome, I probably will. That's just how I play games. Therefore the middleman should be removed. Obsidian made the right decision in New Vegas by removing RNG from skill checks, instead making everything of this sort be threshold based.

^{If you really want that chest opened, be prepared to reload. A lot.}

But the design problems with Dungeons & Dragons run deeper than RNG. I have no qualms saying that Fifth Edition is a bad game. It's messy and contrived and overcomplicated. D20s are a terrible, swingy basis for skill checks, and AC is a ridiculous and antiquated system. But its worst problem, as is perennial in D&D, is its terrible incentive structure. You get XP for killing monsters (or whenever the GM wants to give it out). There are no personal goals or beliefs to play toward like in Torchbearer or Apocalypse Engine games. Your objective is always to kill things: not only because this is the main way to level up, but also because things always have loot.

No real attempt has been made to change this aspect of the rules. You will always earn more XP for mayhem and slaughter than any other path. There are a number of enemies you can talk down throughout the game, as would be expected, but often these are the same enemies that will have high level equipment. Killing them is the sole way to get it. You are thus doubly punished for avoiding combat, and so the designers make it clear: Baldur's Gate 3 is a game about fighting people. It is not Fallout. You cannot defeat the final boss with Persuasion. If you don't murder the man wearing yellow armor, even if he's friendly, you're playing the game wrong.

I guess the incentive to be a murderhobo does very much reflect the way most people play tabletop D&D. But it is not ideal for storytelling.

BG3 is filled with combat, and the last ten hours in particular have very little time for diplomacy. For this reason I would say that it is as much of a tactical adventure game as it is a cRPG. Baldur's Gate 3 is about killing things. You cannot play it as a pacifist. There is no such thing.

Not that this is a great crime. I would have preferred more nuance in incentives, but BG3 is 5E. It's a good, direct adaptation of a mediocre ruleset, and the core mechanics are fun. The first 60 hours are tactically engaging and filled with unique opportunities for players to make their own way. That own way just has to include murder, most of the time.

But combat at higher levels becomes a chore. The encounters are too easy and the stakes are too low. My Dark Urge Fighter had 25 AC at level 12, attacked three times per turn (or six with action surge, or NINE with Haste), did 25+ damage with each hit, had a 95% chance to hit on every shot, and had more than 100 HP. Even on Tactician, every fight was trivial with this arrangement.

Some attempt was made to mix up the endgame battles and introduce new mechanics for boss fights, but with dubious success. These are more frustrating than they are engaging.

^{By the time you have an entourage of a cambion, a deva, an elemental, and six ghouls, every fight is trivial.}

Ten hours in, you unlock the ability to use special Illithid powers. These add a unique progression element to the game and help give some sense that progress is still being made between the vast gulfs of playtime spent at the same level. But like Divinity: Original Sin 2, BG3 has far too many active abilities. Dozens on a single bar, or more. Most of the brainworm powers do nothing more than add additional abilities that you'll forget to use.

^{I am convinced that no human being is capable of remembering to use all of these abilities, even on the rare occasions where they would be useful.}

By far my biggest frustration with the gameplay is the controls. Unlike the first two Baldur's Gates in the Infinity Engine, the party has no formations or marching order. Instead the three companions will follow the selected character awkwardly and clumsily.

See a trap on the ground? Step forward to disarm it without hitting G first and be prepared for everyone in your party to rush ahead of you, setting it off. Even more commonly, combat will end while a concentration AoE spell like Cloud of Daggers is still active; watch as your entire party kills itself walking through that one danger area. This seems to happen to me after every fight.

But the real problems are in the camera. Despite a heavy emphasis on verticality in different arenas, there is no way to manually change Z-level. This means that whatever plane you're on is decided by the game guessing what you're trying to click on. It will usually guess wrong.

Above see my summoned deva who, while attempting to move a few inches closer to an enemy, decided it made more sense to fly to the roof of the building we were in. The only way for me to get him back down was to zoom in and try to click through that small skylight. A similar scenario saw an imp fly up to a rafter which I literally could not see, no matter what I did, thus making him unclickable.

Here's a screenshot of Shadowheart attempting to enter into a room during the worst quest in the game. The camera has decided that I should go directly to the floor above where I need to enter. If I try to walk her inside, she'll instead think I mean the upper storey, and do nothing out of confusion. It was actually impossible for me to get her where she needed to go without carefully walking her to the threshold, zooming in, and trying to click through the doorway.

Stairs are even more agonizing. You won't see the next Z-level until you're standing on the topmost step. If you attempt to click up to where the next storey should be, you'll actually click through the floor and start going back down the stairs. This is annoying out of combat. In combat it's terminal.

A Tour of Bugs

The camera is really the least of the game's technical issues. BG3 is the most technically deficient game I've played since Fallout: New Vegas. That should be no surprise: the campaign is unbelievably long and girthy, and there's no way that some small bumps and blemishes weren't going to sneak through the fingers.

But these are not small bumps and blemishes. They are major issues. Before moving on to what really matters for a game like this (the story), I thought I would catalogue some of the most amusing and debilitating bugs from my playthrough. The praise I have to offer of the narrative means nothing if the game is unplayable, and for me, it nearly was.

Here we see Wyll killing himself after a Long Rest by standing on top of a candle. The first time it happened, I woke up to find him dead. The second time I was just fast enough to catch his final moments before he went up in flames. This same bug pervades Act III: companion NPCs constantly set themselves on fire in camp.

Here is Halsin the Druid who, after joining my party, transformed into a saber-tooth tiger--and stayed transformed in the ensuing cutscene. This would have been fine, were it not for the camera.

...which is not designed...

...with such a thing in mind.

Druids are supposed to transform back into human shape during conversations, just so we're clear.

You may have thought that Mizora turning Wyll into a demon was a horrific punishment for his crimes, but in fact the true punishment was that she stole his arms.

Of all the books in this game, I think this one was my favorite to read. I hope we get a MOO_GloryOfTheAbsolute DLC.

When Halsin died late in my campaign, I could use Speak with Dead on him. Despite having been killed by a demon in Act III, he seemed to think he had been killed in Act I by a goblin.

In this screenshot we see that Gale still has an option concerning the true nature of the "Nightsong." The problem is that this is from Act III, and we’d already identified, discovered, and recovered the Nightsong--about forty hours previously.

An interesting name for an area.

Big Huido looks suspiciously like a poorly textured staircase, but not so much as Dolly Dolly Dolly looks like a floorboard:

But these issues are all very minor. This is to be expected on release for a huge game like this, and most don't make any difference.

The same cannot be said for the following error:

At approximately 60 hours played, I received this error. I would fail out of loading any of my recent saves. My file was corrupted.

I managed to get into a quicksave from two hours previously after a bit of fiddling around. It turned out that the use of summons was/is breaking save files in certain zones. But before I figured this out, I thought my entire campaign was gone. Thankfully I practice good save hygiene, but many others on the Steam forums do not, and they have lost everything. Looking back now, all of my endgame saves are corrupted. Thankfully I had foreseen this, so I pressed forward for several hours to make sure I beat the game in a single go. Otherwise I would have lost another night of progress.

This is a horrendous bug. It must be fixed ASAP.

Act II is where the technical problems become very severe. Beyond everything mentioned above, the far more insidious bugs relating to dialogue and quest markers begin. I missed multiple important conversations relating to the plot...because they never played. A major story element is Shadowheart's magic artifact; in Act I, she's jealous enough over guarding it that she will kill anyone who tries to take it away. But later on there's an event where she gives it to the player.

The event never triggered. It simply teleported into my inventory, mysteriously, without explanation.

Romancing Shadowheart, we also experienced our first kiss--twice! The major Act I romance sequence repeated itself, identically, for no reason. This had no further consequences, but I was paralyzed with fear that my romance attempt had been somehow corrupted. At the end of Act II, my allies attacked me for trespassing...in the enemy base I'd just cleared out.

The list goes on.

Finally, the game currently suffers from a memory leak. Despite my PC being above the recommended specs, I endured constant stuttering and endless FPS lag over the course of my playthrough. The latest NVIDIA drivers improved performance yesterday, but it isn't entirely fixed yet.

There is no excuse for Baldur's Gate 3 to be using this much RAM and system power.

The Story

One of the most spectacular features of Act I is that every dead NPC can be spoken to using the "Speak with Dead" spell. Every corpse, no matter how insignificant, will have something to say. They will help you solve puzzles and find treasure and work out where to go next in the quest, or simply add flavor and background to the environment. The same is true for animals; every beast always has something to say.

But it isn't just animals and corpses. Every living NPC has something to say. Every character has a name and is voice acted. The world feels entrancingly alive.

It is no exaggeration to say that the first twenty or thirty hours of Baldur's Gate 3 are among the best in any roleplaying game ever made. I cannot express how much I loved Act I, especially when I first played it in Early Access earlier in April. The characters are fascinating, full of personality, and have rich backstories to uncover.

The quests are best of all. The narrative is as non-linear as a Fallout game. The default path seems to be siding with the Grove of Druids against the Absolute and its goblin hordes, but this is an illusion. You can side with the goblins, if you prefer, and receive a completely different experience. I cannot remember the last time I played a cRPG with this much player reactivity. Pillars of Eternity II comes close, but BG3 is really in its own league.

It doesn't last. Act II sheds reactivity in exchange for a railroad. Corpses, even ones who should have something to say, are mute. Animals fall silent. NPCs each have a single line and nothing more. While I wouldn't call it linear, the outcome feels increasingly forced, and by the time you meet the Absolute at the act's finale, you will be wondering why your entire party is sitting around, allowing the bad guys to get away with their plans, doing nothing when they could be resolving the plot. This happens in two revoltingly egregious locations and is a minor issue in countless others.

The main story is rarely a strong point in cRPGs. Pillars 2 is the only game in this genre where the central plotline is a highlight, rather than a chore. Instead these games excel at companion characters, side quests, and bonus content. I'm usually willing to forgive flaws in the central plot if these other elements are good.

I don't know whether I like Baldur's Gate 3's story or not. Its restricted scope and direct focus are excellent in Act I, but as the story expands, so too do the crutches used by the writers. In Act III, you are regularly ambushed by one of the major antagonists. But if you try to fight her, she says, "Nah bro. ur not rdy yet. we'll fight when I DECIDE."

This is infuriating in a game that is supposedly non-linear and open-ended. The problem only gets worse as time goes on, leading up to the final encounter: there are four checks in a row that require nat 20s to succeed. I decided to savescum my way to victory, only for the game to have me lose anyway--as if winning was impossible and hadn't even been considered. Rolling four 20s in a row resulted in no different an outcome than rolling zero.

That is a railroad.

Act III otherwise improves many of Act II’s flaws. The story is more engaging and full of great quests with highly variable outcomes, although the uselessness of Speak with Dead remains infuriating. Exploring Baldur's Gate (the city) is fascinating and straight out of Dishonored or Deus Ex. As the Dark Urge's true identity is revealed, my investment in the narrative and my main character's fate increased massively, and while it could have been done better, I was supremely satisfied with how everything worked out.

This is a metaphor for the storyline as a whole, I think. I have major problems with how the fight against the Absolute and the Illithids is written. The narrative designers rely heavily on pre-established lore and setting details to resolve and drive their plot, rather than having the plot drive and resolve itself. Acts II and III are full of Deus ex machina moments, where victory is subverted or (conversely) failure averted through a last-minute addition of some contrived new detail. Constant reasons are introduced for the plot to continue on, when really it should just end early. Characters at this point often make extreme or insane decisions in the face of almost no persuasion or discussion, often in a way that's reminiscent of Bethesda. To say this is a disappointment would be to say too little. There are several scenes highly reminiscent of that linked above from FO4.

I won't lie or pretend that I like Faerun and the Forgotten Realms as a setting. I don't. I can't stand FR. It has no aesthetic sense at all. It's my least favorite of all major mainstream fantasy settings, and I would never consider playing a tabletop D&D campaign in it. But I am moderately familiar with the lore--and even I felt like I was at sea half of the time.

Here is a minor, spoiler-free example from Wyll. This is a line of dialogue where I am expected to know who Tiamat and Zariel are, and understand their relationship with Mizora (a minor character), in order to appreciate what's happening. I don't even know who Tiamat and Zariel are. Throughout the game, and especially toward its conclusion, the narrative is rife with dialogue like this. These details often makes a major difference in the story.

Ultimately, by the conclusion of Act III, the main storyline is so contrived and confusing that the optimal path toward my preferred outcome becomes obscured. This led to immense apathy. Should I side with Illithids, the Gith, the Dream Visitor, or forge my own path? Which option will lead to where I want to end up? I know which ending I want, but I don't know how to get there. This is because the writers have relied so much on awful D&D setting information that the lore, rather than narrative, is driving the outcome of the plot.

Contrast this with a game like Dragon Age: Origins. At the end of Origins, a twist--that the one who kills the Archdemon must himself die--is introduced. It makes sense and is intuitively connected to the lore established in the prologue concerning Gray Wardens. Morrigan then offers a way out, relying on lore, adding in another twist that was also set up at the beginning of the game. You must then make a decision:

• Will I perform the Dark Ritual?

• If I don't, who will die?

  • Loghain

  • Alistair

  • Me

The consequences of any of these decisions are obviously telegraphed. If you sacrifice yourself, you will die. There you have it. It isn't more complicated than that. A good RPG should have player consequences be that obvious.

This is not the case in Baldur's Gate 3.

Yet with all of this said, I ended up getting the best outcome. So I can't complain too much, except to say that it felt a bit too idyllic in the end.

But still. When the Absolute and its motivations are revealed, they are stunningly contrived and very confusing. I found myself constantly wishing for a pause button so I could parse through the over-complicated dialogue. I'm taking it on good faith that the Absolute's plan actually makes sense, but I don't think it does.

The main story has its highlights, but it is not the strength of this game.

All of this is pretty much a sideshow. The most important question about an attempt at a BioWare-style old school cRPG in the vein of Baldur's Gate and KotOR is whether or not the characters are engaging and well-written. Nothing else about BG3 matters to me. Companions are the most important part of a game like this. So are the companions in BG3 good?

Yes. The cast is large, beginning with six (or five if you play as an Origin), and later expands to include at least four more. A number of characters, such as Minsc and Jaheira, return from Baldur's Gate 2, but I found them to be much weaker than the original characters created by Larian. Did we really need to see Minsc again? Did we really need to see his cock? Does he have to be constantly talking about his space hamster?

For me, the answer is definitively no.

But I really like the original cast. They come on strong and lack the charisma of companions in David Gaider's RPGs (KotOR and Dragon Age), but they have good, naturalistic dialogue and distinctive personalities, backstories, and motivations, and great voice acting. A lot of players are complaining that they talk too much like Joss Whedon characters, and while this is probably true, it's far preferable to what we normally receive in RPGs these days.

Of course I prefer some more than others. I find Lae'zel and Karlach unbearable but love Shadowheart and Gale. This is a matter of personal preference.

What's most important to note is that this is the first RPG I’ve played since Inquisition nine years ago to feature a companion approval and romance system. It's almost identical to what we see in Origins, with the major exception of gift giving.

I romanced Shadowheart, and the arc she experienced as a result is the best writing I've seen in a video game in a decade. Her story, as she struggles with her identity as a Shar worshipper and tries to figure out who to be, is simply phenomenal. Her characterization completely changes as a result of your actions based on whether you allow her to doom herself to Shar or turn to the light and find redemption--which is clearly what she needs. By the time her arc was resolved, I was immensely satisfied. Every line of party dialogue in which she no longer gothy and sad but happy and witty was delicious reward for my trials.

Writing arcs for companion characters in RPGs is extremely challenging. How does a character have a satisfying arc, when every specific detail of her journey is dependent on character actions? Almost no one has ever pulled it off except David Gaider, with Morrigan in Dragon Age: Origins.

Shadowheart isn't as compelling as Morrigan. But she's the closest we've ever come to capturing that same magic. Larian pulled it off.

As for the other companions, I can't say. I thought Gale's story was interesting, but it never went anywhere (I might have missed something). I liked Wyll's psychodrama at first, but it quickly became tiresome; although he's not a bad character in the abstract, and he has wants and desires and flaws, he has no charisma or personality. He is very boring. I was skipping most of his dialogue by the end.

I'm saving my interactions with the other companions for my next playthrough. While I would bet that Shadowheart is the best overall, I'm sure the others are still good.

So comparisons back to Dragon Age: Origins are as obvious as they are intentional. I use such comparisons mostly as a form of praise. But this same standard also draws forth my major criticism of how the companions are written: compared to a Dragon Age game, they are shallow.

One of the best things about Inquisition is how your companions seem to have their own lives whenever you return to Skyhold. There's always something going on in camp. The characters fight with each other, they argue, they play, they spar, they dance; Skyhold feels thrillingly alive. Checking in on Cullen is always a reward, because you get some new scene of him struggling with lyrium withdrawal, or filling out his taxes, or whatever else is going on in his life at that moment.

With one very notable exception, BG3 has nothing like this. Companions will occasionally have things to say in camp, but they never interact with each other, and they mostly stay put in their tents. If you check in on them, they will add in one line of dialogue about whatever most recently happened--"That fight with those Illithids sure was tough, eh?"--and nothing more. These single-line comments are often sentimentally identical between everyone in camp, too, so they're more like punishment for clicking on your friends than a reward. I do not need, "So Wyll is a warlock. Cool." to be repeated eight times with slightly different verbiage; I get it.

Shadowheart is not a shallow character. She's complex and interesting. But when I return to camp to speak with her, she never has anything new to say--except when the story is progressing--and she rarely has new dialogue options. Compared to Morrigan, her dialogue trees are feeble and unimpressive.

^{Although you can kiss her while covered in blood. So that's something.}

For such a huge game, with so many different characters to talk to and places to explore, I find this disappointing. Origins had countless small but memorable character moments: when the dog steals Morrigan's underwear, or when Sten has a growling contest with the dog. These are but two small examples. The absence of similar moments in a game so obviously inspired by Origins is severely felt.

I'm also underwhelmed by her and other companions' reactions to significant plot events. The revelation of the Dark Urge's true identity is HEAVY; when you go around telling it to your friends, they have nothing to say except, "That's crazy. Back to the road, then?"

The scene where the party discovers Revan’s true identity in KotOR is epic and can lead to party member death. BG3 needed much more of that. There are brief moments of introspection after Act I, and a bit after Act II, but they are far too few.

There are Origins-style party dialogues between companions while exploring, however, and these are excellent.

The choice to make every character bisexual, unlike the Dragon Age games, does a lot to undermine the strength of the cast. Dorian is gay in Inquisition. This fact plays into his character and personality. He will flirt with you subtly if you are a male character. If you turn him down, the two of you don’t halt the progress of your relationship: you continue to have an epic bromance that rivals anything written in any other game.

In Origins, the relationship between a male Warden and Morrigan is nothing like the relationship between a female Warden and Morrigan. Everything changes. The nature of how the characters interact is completely different, and Morrigan grows in very different ways. Both are brilliant, but they are not interchangeable. This is because two women have different kinds of relationships than one hot man and one hot woman can have.

You can be friends with Gale after you tell him that you don’t want to fuck. But there’s nothing like that transition to pure friendship. Things seem to stop abruptly. And I hate that my dialogue options don’t reflect how I actually feel whenever this happens--which is a problem found throughout the whole of the game.

It isn't a dealbreaker. The companions are still very good. But they aren't as good as in Origins and Inquisition, or perhaps even KotOR, though they could have been.

There's So Much More

I've barely even started this review. There is so much more to discuss. There's so much more that I like and so much more that I loathe about Baldur's Gate 3. I have serious qualms with the way the player's dialogue options are written, and I strongly dislike the Dark Urge's character quest in Act II. I think that many of the minor annoyances that a player is likely to experience are present for no reason except that Larian was determined to make this game multiplayer, and I haven't even mentioned how much I like the score. I had intended to write about all of this and much more when I started taking notes.

But I think I've said enough. You get the idea. Baldur's Gate 3 is a good game. It may even be a great game. It has countless moments of brilliance and phenomenal side characters, who are among the best in the entire genre. I don't know if they match up to BioWare in its prime, but they come very close. No RPG like this has come out since The Witcher 3. It has singlehandedly brought serious cRPGs back into the mainstream. There is no one for whom I would not recommend it.

...or that's what I would say, were it not for the bugs. The bugs nearly ruined my experience. They tested my patience and made me hurried when I should have been relaxed. They led me to dislike this game much more than I would have otherwise. They are what make me the most trepidatious about giving a recommendation.

If you don't mind the risk of having your save corrupted and dialogue sequences skipping themselves, have at it. You will enjoy BG3. But otherwise I strongly urge you to wait. Give it a month. Maybe even give it a year. You will play a significantly better game than I did. And when all of these issues are fixed, anyone who likes RPGs has to give Baldur's Gate 3 a go.

I played the game on PC with a purchase from Steam. Total playtime: 55 hours according to my save file, but 70 hours according to Steam. The difference is probably the result of savescumming and being forced to replay content; I wouldn't be surprised if I lost about 15 hours between the two by the end.

Pick up a copy on Steam or GOG.

Aliens: Dark Descent has too many problems to list. Not small issues, but serious design flaws. The gameplay lacks fundamental features that needed to be included for any game attempting survival horror-tactics like this. The narrative components are poorly written, poorly translated, and poorly paced. The game festers with serious and often progress-impeding bugs, and large amounts of patching will be required over the next few months.

All this together should be disqualifying. These things should make Dark Descent, at best, a mediocre AA game, hardly worth $40. This should not be an experience worth your time.

These are the things Aliens: Dark Descent should be. This should not be a good game.

Yet should isn't is. What Dark Descent is is significantly more than the sum of its parts. What it is is relentlessly engaging and thoroughly unique. What it is is the game I was unable to put down for twenty hours straight, which has consumed my thoughts for the last three days. I still regret that it's over.

Aliens: Dark Descent is not mediocre. Despite so many flaws, it may even be brilliant. It represents the best Alien game since Isolation nine years ago, and enters the pantheon of must-play games for fans of the films (alongside AvP2). But when you sit down to play, be ready to grapple with some frustration, and don’t forget your Raid Bug Spray—for aliens and technical issues both, you’ll be sure to need it.

An X-COM ImSim?

In Aliens: Dark Descent, the player takes control of a small squad of United States Colonial Marines who have crash-landed on the planet Lethe, which is both overrun with xenomorphs and coincidentally looks exactly like LV-426 from Alien and Aliens. Balance resources and the wellbeing of your marines against a doomsday clock as you struggle to repair your ship, the Otago, over the course of eleven persistent-world story missions.

The bird’s-eye perspective of Dark Descent will make it sound like an X-COM clone: a class-based strategy game about managing a clock, customizing and taking care of individual soldiers in and out of the field, while juggling an overworld campaign and the realities of day-to-day military operations.

The metagame might as well be a simplified version of X-COM: Enemy Unknown. Managing your soldiers’ health, giving them new names and haircuts, researching gear, buying guns, and investing in equipment: the influence is undeniable.

But the rest isn’t an X-COM clone like WH40k: Daemonhunters at all. Instead it is a pausable squad-based real-time tactics/stealth game in the vein of the Commandos series or Shadow Tactics: Blade of the Shogun. Dark Descent’s main innovation is that the squad is always controlled as a single entity; an AI system will determine which marine is best suited to perform any individual task when the order is issued. You are never permitted to split the squad otherwise.

Most of any mission is spent sneaking through a colonial facility or space station while attempting to avoid xenomorphs or human enemies. Directly engaging in combat causes each marine to individually generate Stress, which slowly accumulates into debilitating debuffs if not reduced through pills and resting. Of course engaging threats directly also risks death, as xenos will begin Hunting the player down after even a brief encounter with a single drone, leading to raised Hive Alertness.

You can think of this like an alarm in Metal Gear Solid, with a punishing twist: if Hive Alertness gets too high, the aliens on a map will become more aggressive, and special elite xenos—Crushers and Praetorians, which should be familiar to any player of Colonial Marines 13--will spawn in to track you down.

^{Detected. Hunted. Onslaught incoming. Better find a chokepoint.}

This feeds into the other primary innovation of Dark Descent: each mission is persistent. The scarcity of resources such as medkits, toolkits, and ammunition, as well as the ever-increasing difficulty of the aliens on a map, incentivizes the player to withdraw before completing every objective. Once withdrawn, your squad can rest, recover HP and mental Trauma accrued from Stress damage, refit their gear, or swap out with different marines entirely for a second run. Or third run. Or fourth run.

You can complete missions as quickly or slowly as you see fit. If things get too intense, head back to the APC and bug out; the level will be there tomorrow. The catch is that the Wey-Yu space station in orbit is set to launch nukes at the surface in 28 days: run down that clock, and the only thing that’s going to be left of the Otago is a smear on the side of an asteroid.

Prowling around dark, atmospheric, and persistent levels while staring at your motion detector, evading xenos, looting crates, and searching for text logs is what leads me to describe Dark Descent as a strategy/tactics game take on the Immersive Simulation formula. The levels are open-ended, generally featuring redundant and alternative paths for your marines to take while ducking into cover and avoiding patrolling xenos. The game feels a lot like System Shock or Alien: Isolation levels as viewed from a security camera's perspective. It could also be viewed as a survival horror game fused with the RTT genre, although the focus on character progression tilts the scale toward ImSim for me.

^{Shortcut unlocked_.}

While sneaking around, you’ll always have support from the APC. With it you’ll be able to extract your squad or redeploy elsewhere on a level, safely rolling past any drones on patrol. The APC can be controlled indirectly from the map screen and sent to various predetermined positions throughout a level. Its turrets wreck xenos, and watching it light up an approaching horde over the course of a few seconds is immensely satisfying. Using the APC as fire support is one of the most enjoyable features of Dark Descent, and I wish the player had more control over its movement.

But while the primary gameplay loop is both fundamentally solid and a unique fusion of several different types of games, it is far from perfect. The total inability to micromanage individual marines was clearly intentional—there’s a loading screen tip that states this outright—but often creates frustration and pointless confusion. For example, Recon marines can learn to use a sniper, and this sniper can be outfitted with a silencer. This is the only way to take out patrolling xenos without alerting the hive, and is hugely useful during the stealth phase of missions.

But you aren’t even permitted to change the marching order of your squad while deployed, and when ordered to use a special ability, marines won’t path to a location as they would in similar games. This ultimately leads to the bizarre situation where I have to march my entire squad out into the open, allowing myself to be detected, as I maneuver my Recon to a spot where he’ll have line of sight on the target I want neutralized. If the Recon is in the party’s rear, you might have to step your entire squad all the way out in front of an approaching drone until he can take his shot, at which point it will be too late.

^{When you're a world-class special forces xeno killing operative, but can't figure out how to move two inches to the right.}

Marines also are too stupid to aim at xenos with their special weapons. The manually aimed shotgun, for example, has a widely expanding cone of effect, with two sections to demarcate different levels of damage. But because of how it expands, and because you cannot target xenos directly but only the ground they’re running across, the shotgun is paradoxically the least accurate weapon at close range—good luck hitting a moving target, after a delay, with two pixels of a shotgun, at point-blank.

This same issue affects every weapon. The RPG seems useful, and can be in a pinch, but your marine will not adjust her aim once the order to fire has been given. So if that Queen moves slightly to the left, you’ll miss. Combined with how awkward maneuvering individual marines is when you can only control the squad as a single entity, I can’t help but think that some amount of auto-aim would have been appreciated.

^{For if xenos get close. But not TOO close!}

Beyond the RPG, shotgun, and sniper rifle, special gear consists of mines and flamers. These aren’t weapons the marines will make use of themselves, but special attacks that can be queued up using Command Points, a regenerating resource that is expended on abilities. I found Command Point skills to be useful throughout the entire game, and always satisfying. But, at least on Normal, they were practically infinite. By the time my Squad Leader hit level ten, I could never expend them all in a single fight. Even if I did, they would all be back in the blink of an eye. The balance never seemed right. Some kind of ordnance resource to limit use of mines and grenades would have made sense; as it is, you can spam both infinitely.

Combat itself is not complicated. Once detected, the squad will open fire on any xenos in sight. You can place Suppression cones for a Command Point in a single direction, but the most you’ll be able to do thereafter is choose which direction to walk or run in. Marines will fire while walking backward, which means that kiting xenos while juggling weapon powers is about all there is to going loud. This gives Dark Descent’s combat sections a Dawn of War 2 kind of feel, and I wonder how much the game would change if you were given three or four squads to manage at a single time; I doubt it would be too much to do.

The simple ability to split your squad within a small radius around the Leader via a special ability would do a lot to make the game feel less like a kiting simulator and more like an actual tactics game, and there are places in the campaign--especially when dealing with human enemies--where the lack of such an ability feels less like intentional design and more like an oversight.

^{Some of the strongest sections are about point defense, a bit like last year's Starship Troopers RTS, where you can set up sentry turrets. See Fort Sentry pictured above. But at times like these, the inability to individually position marines for maximum efficiency is the most severely felt. Splitting the squad to opposite sides of a barricade, for example, could help reduce xeno acid splash damage in emergencies--but such a thing is not permitted.}

I similarly feel like the stealth mechanics aren’t developed enough to warrant their overall importance. Avoiding xenos whenever possible is vital to keeping Stress and Hive Alertness low; these are the game’s real killers. But when it comes down to it, there are no stealth mechanics except for monitoring blips on your Motion Detector, keeping out of LoS, and making use of the silenced sniper whenever possible.

That’s it. There’s nothing else to do.

While I appreciate Stress and Alertness as mechanics in theory, they cascade together in the perfectly wrong way for a stealth game. Being spotted leads to combat, which causes Stress; combat leads to being Hunted, which generates Stress until the hive gives up; being Hunted leads back to combat, which leads to Stress; being hunted also generates Hive Alertness, which leads to increasing difficulty and further combat.

In other words, you’d better not get spotted. That would be fine in a stealth game—but is a real-time tactics X-COM clone with two and a half stealth mechanics really a stealth game at its core? Its incentive structures say it is, but the mechanics disagree.

In any case, Hive Alertness is frustrating and overburdening, but Stress can be dealt with easily. The primary method of both saving the game and reducing Stress is through welding your squad into a room that xenos can’t reach, then resting. This costs between one and four toolkits, and reduces between 90 and 150 Stress, depending on the traits your marines have. Resting can also regenerate HP and ammo with the right perks.

I’m not sure that chilling out for an hour in a tin can while xenos skitter around inches beyond the door would be the most stress relieving experience, but then I’m not in the USCMC.

^{Let me chill out for a sec in this acid bloodbath. It really hits the spot.}

The resting mechanic makes toolkits vitally important to long-term success and gives a strong structure of play to the game. Get spotted, find tools, weld yourself in a room, repeat. You’ll always be on the lookout for dead-ends and storage closets that will make for good safehouses. This is one of the primary ways the game cultivates its excellent sense of tension.

But the punitiveness of interactions between combat, Stress, and Alertness might make resting too important overall. At one point in the game, when I found myself with plenty of toolkits and five marines near 300% Stress, I simply welded, rested, unwelded, welded, rested, unwelded, welded, and rested again within a single room; I thus found my squad back up to 100% in all respects except armor, which can’t be regenerated mid-mission. There is no penalty in this scenario for causing such a huge delay. Survivors on the map will never be abducted by xenos when you aren't looking and objectives will never time out.

A definite mark in the game’s favor in this regard is that many levels feature human enemies. These encounters turn Dark Descent from kiting simulator to cover shooter, lending much-needed variety. More importantly, humans lack Alertness, and don’t Hunt the marines after a fight. Stress will still be generated when human enemies are engaged, but these occasional firefights break up the monotony of rest spam, and let off some of the game's immense tension. It’s a huge relief when you come upon a room filled with cultists, launch a few grenades, exchange shots from cover, and suffer no further consequences (except, perhaps, a point of damage or two).

I completed the game with nine days remaining, finishing most levels in a single deployment. Without knowing how many missions there were in total, I felt extreme pressure not to waste any time. This ended up wearing out my highest level marines more than was needed, but saved me a few days in the long run. Since each passing day also adds to the hive difficulty by one point, I’d say I made the right choice.

The lack of a manual save feature would seem to suggest that Dark Descent wants to be played ironman, like any X-COM clone should. But I found the imprecise controls and immensely punishing outcomes for high level marine death to make this an impossibility in all but the most minor of circumstances. In X-COM 2, losing one of your best soldiers feels horrible, but improved armor and weapons make catching up underleveled squaddies less daunting than it might otherwise be.

In Dark Descent, gear is also tied to marine level. Only level 10 marines, for example, can make use of the ludicrously overpowered plasma rifle—even after it’s been researched. Since lower level marines also lack important skills for survival, a deployment of five level one marines into mission 11 isn’t much more potent than a deployment of four level one marines in mission 1. They will be using the same gear, with perhaps slightly improved armor from xenotech.

The overall upgrade scheme of weapons is excellent despite this small pacing issue. While the plasma rifle’s destructive capabilities are obscene, the other weapons are never directly better than what precedes them. I made sure at least one marine still had a basic M41-A even in the final mission because of how useful its grenade launcher was. The Heavy Pulse Rifle is better than the M41-A, but is it an upgrade worth your UGL? Hard to say, which makes it a compelling decision to make.

^{We got tactical smart missiles, phased-plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks...}

The various other weapons aren’t quite as compelling. No more than one marine needs to carry mines, and the flamer is utterly useless (at least, I found it to be). The shotgun remains king throughout the entire game. Sidearms, also, are entirely pointless; I used them three or four times in total. The SMG did not prove worth the 200 Resources I paid for it.

The marines themselves are much like X-COM’s soldiers, with a suite of customization options, classes, and individual perks. Class-specific level benefits are unlocked slowly and require a monetary investment, while general character perks are earned each level. These are things like +HP, +Accuracy, +Crit Chance, or the one-time removal of the marine’s base negative trait.

Yes. Every marine begins the game with a single negative personality trait. These range from minor— “minus one HP” or “starts with one fewer magazine”—to unbelievably punishing, such as “steals twenty resources at the end of every mission,” or, “deals one damage to a friendly marine while resting.”

Some of these are incredibly disruptive. I think the developers went overboard. These traits can be removed upon level up, but only with a degree of luck: the perk options a character receives are random.

This system would have been stronger if the traits changed the ways a marine acted in more ambivalent ways, conferring some advantage while also carrying a penalty. As it is, you can guess that the guy who dealt his friends damage never got to go on any missions.

As marines go on deployments, they’ll also accumulate Trauma. Trauma has various effects, but is always negative, and generally works similarly to traits. This is better for the game overall, because Trauma can be managed through time spent in the Psych Ward. It’s a strong incentive to scatter marine eggs throughout as many different baskets as possible, to make sure that your best characters get enough time to recover between important deployments.

The classes are Squad Leader, Recon, Medic, Tecker, and Gunner, and each does what you would expect. Each marine is promoted to one of these five roles at third level. I like the customizability of the squad overall, but I would have preferred weapon and armor upgrades more along the lines of X-COM 2: with the exception of the Gunner, every class uses the same main weapons; and with the exception of Recon, they use the same side and heavy weapons, too. Class restricted shotguns, DMRs, and explosives to be used as primary, rather than Command Point-only, weapons would do a lot for variety’s sake over the course of a campaign, and add in some much-needed differentiation between the classes. As it is, they might look different, but they feel mostly the same.

^{Absolutely badasses!}

Dark Descent is trying to do a lot. The designers have combined three separate genres into a single cohesive experience. It features the combat of Dawn of War 2, the stealth of Shadow Tactics, and the campaign management of X-COM 2, and synthesizes them into something new. It does this remarkably well.

Yet it feels like the game could stand to do even more. More complexity. More resources. More control over individual units. More mechanics for stealth and maneuvering. Sprawling as the experience already is, I want more.

But it’s telling that, despite listing so many gripes with the game, I never was seriously frustrated or annoyed with Dark Descent. If I felt I was unfairly spotted, or that a death wasn’t warranted, or a level’s layout didn’t make sense, an autosave was never more than five minutes back. I wanted so much more out of this game, but what is there works well enough that nothing more is needed. The only real source of aggravation over the course of my playtime was that there's no way to lock doors open--that is the one thing that I think desperately needs to be patched in.

So Dark Descent could be better. I have high hopes for a sequel, and the possibilities seem limitless: a DLC about returning to Hadley’s Hope; a standalone expansion where we play as WY PMCs; a sequel that does everything the same, but works in so much more. As a series, the idea of this game is incredibly exciting.

But even as a standalone game, it works. It’s a tense, engaging, and unique experience. Aliens: Dark Descent is a must-buy for Alien fans, and I’d recommend it to anyone who enjoys real-time tactics games and X-COM clones. The campaign is long and stuffed with content; it took me over twenty hours to complete everything, and I could have gone much slower. And while its $40 price tag goes hand-in-hand with AA quality and technical issues, at that price, it’s still more than worth it. So long as you’re willing to grapple with occasional crashes, rough performance, clipping, and graphical glitches, I would absolutely recommend this game for full price.

There is one problem I haven’t yet mentioned, though.

The Story

A bit like Daemonhunters, Dark Descent features a prominent linear narrative. You assume the role of Maeko Hayes, the deputy administrator of a space station orbiting Lethe, and follow her as a player character throughout the campaign. She’s controlled directly during a handful of missions, as well as the tutorial, but otherwise plays the role of “the Commander” in X-COM.

Maeko’s sections of the game are very weak. Her prologue is borderline awful, and the rest of her missions are even worse. I don’t mind the idea of injecting personality into the Commander character, but her degree of importance in the plot—as a minor administrator—creates dissonance with the gameplay, and leads us to what is Dark Descent’s worst quality: its narrative.

The Last of Us on PS3 is renowned for its story. I launched this blog to complain about its sequel almost three years ago. And if you tally up every pre-rendered cutscene in TLoU, the total runtime comes out to about ninety minutes.

If you do the same for Aliens: Dark Descent, the total runtime is over one hundred minutes.

Aliens: Dark Descent does not have 10% more story than The Last of Us.

An impressive amount of money and effort has gone into the narrative. Every line of dialogue is voice-acted, and the cutscenes look incredible for a AA production. Care has been taken. The developers wanted their game to match up to the big leagues.

There’s one thing they didn’t put time and care into, though: the writing.

The developers are French. It shows. The game’s script is riddled with bizarre dialogue that could only have been written by a non-native speaker of English. It has an uncanny quality that makes it very hard to listen to, and the countless verbal references to the original films are likely to induce cringe overload. In small doses the talking might have been tolerable, but there’s so much, always in your face, always distracting from the gameplay, that I had to resort to skipping as much of the story as possible. It would have been a dealbreaker if I hadn’t been able to.

^{Beyond endless melodrama, every character refers to the aliens not as "xenos," but "critters." This makes Dark Descent the second Eurojank game I've played this year that endlessly uses this word, despite it being almost never said unironically in the US.}

Beyond being overlong and poorly scripted, the plot is crammed with tired tropes and ridiculous cliches, and ultimately tells a story more reminiscent of Luc Besson than James Cameron. The third act especially is so ridiculous that I was laughing out loud at every line of dialogue, and the final confrontation is almost a parody of the franchise’s creative staleness. The story is so ridiculous and poorly done, with such high production values that it borders on “so bad it’s good.”

Unfortunately, that’s not what I wanted from an Alien game. But oh well. A strong narrative would have been a huge boon to Dark Descent, but a bad one is a fairly minor ding. It’s a strategy game at its core, and you should play it for its strategy gameplay—not its story. The atmosphere is otherwise strong, and the designers clearly had a good sense of the property. That is a good thing when it comes to sound and art design, but may just be the problem when it comes to narrative.

I’m hoping they might do a better job with a sequel. Like, maybe they’ll hire someone who speaks English as a first language. Someone like me. I’m available. Hire me to do it. Please.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I've been looking forward to Diablo 4 since its initial gameplay reveal trailer in 2019. Diablo 2 is an awful slog and 3 isn't much better, but the fidelity of the graphics and animation impressed me, and I began to construct an enjoyable dark fantasy aRPG in my imagination that could, conceivably, have been the next Diablo.

Having now played Diablo 4 for 20 hours in beta and at least as long again in the complete release, I can report only that I was spectacularly wrong. Diablo 4 has nothing. It is one of the most excruciatingly dull games ever released. Now, at level 42 on my Sorceress, I can say that any desire to play has been sapped from my soul, leaving nothing but a vague sense of compulsion to write this article.

There are many critiques of this game online. I have a bigger question to pose today:

Why does Diablo exist?

The original Diablo was released in 1996. It remains one of my favorite games and is better than the other games in its franchise by several thousand times. Diablo is excellent due to atmosphere, especially in story and music, and the simple progression loop of delving ever deeper into the single dungeon. Without monster respawns, you never feel like you're stuck in an infinite purgatory of goatmen, culling the same herd endlessly until your joints freeze shut from arthritis and your controller falls out of your hands.

In gameplay, Diablo was a direct adaptation of simple Dungeons & Dragons rules, converted to real-time, played isometrically, and made for a computer. It thus invented the aRPG genre--where the player clicks on things until they die--but its central combat mechanics were the least important part of its structure. It was more about resource management and choosing the right gear.

Far more interesting action fantasy roleplaying games have been developed since 1996. From Soul Reaver to Fable and, most obviously, Dark Souls, the ability to render actual 3D game worlds, with complicated character development, good storytelling, and combat mechanics more engaging than clicking on things has increased dramatically. There are many good aRPGs, but only a handful that still use the isometric, click-to-death combat first developed 27 years ago (Path of Exile, Diablo, Torchlight; better titles, like Hades, keep the atmosphere and perspective while revamping the gameplay, bringing it more in line with a Dark Souls title; this is what Blizzard should have done).

Diablo 4 returns us to a Diablo 2-inspired structure of gameplay, while restricting the player to six skills at a time. The spectacular innovation that took Blizzard 11 years to implement is that there is now a dodge button. Mechanics seen in games by Larian, such as environmental interactions between skills and objects, remain entirely absent. Gameplay consists of holding down your "Core Skill" button until hordes of indistinguishable enemies stop moving, or until Ice Shards-sponge bosses have died of ten million papercuts.

I have a great many criticisms of the level design and skill tree structure in D4. But the primary combat systems have barely changed since 1996.

^{I don't like this either, but there is beauty in simplicity.}

D4 is effectively an MMO. What does it have that World of Warcraft does not? Vanilla WoW combat was basic compared to what we see in D4, but by Wrath of the Lich King, the difference becomes increasingly minuscule. D4 has an increased emphasis on avoiding projectiles and attacks, especially using the new evade button, but the player has far fewer active abilities to pull from, and the basic skill toolkit is almost identical: spam a basic skill, move around; spam a core skill, move around; use everything more powerful whenever it's off cooldown, then move around. Repeat ad infinitum.

Yet in World of Warcraft, an incredible third dimension is added to the player's toolkit through the ability to jump. World of Warcraft also features interesting environments and actually-designed levels, unlike horrific nightmare mazes slammed together by some algorithm as seen in every Diablo game. This vital difference means World of Warcraft feels like it takes place in a living fantasy setting, full of things to explore, which thus warrants its open world. Diablo 4's open world might as well be a collection of mine tunnels, with a few caverns interspersed.

Probably most important is that, in World of Warcraft, the player has things to do other than mindless murder and grinding. Questing and dungeon-delving feel different. Quests themselves are varied. There's also PvP and professions, plus the auction house. Individual dungeons and quests can make use of traps, platforming sections, and vehicles (excuse me while I throw up, but at least it's variety).

Diablo 4 has murder and mindless grinding. It technically has quests, but they're all the same. The main campaign takes you through countless biomes, but they're also all the same beyond their color palettes. There are no traps that matter. There's no platforming. There are no vehicles. The game is its combat, and only its combat.

^{There may only be one Scholomance, but it is infinitely more interesting than seventy-six identical, tedious, procedurally generated dungeons.}

So D4 is an action game all about combat. But what does it have relative to Elden Ring?

I'll tell you what it doesn't have:

• A dodge mechanic that matters

• Horse combat

• Interesting 3D environments that keep you on your toes

• Varied enemy design and engaging bosses

• Puzzles and platforming sections

• Secrets and cool level design

• The ability to jump

These things are entirely absent from Diablo 4. All it has relative to Elden Ring, or any modern action RPG, is its class system; its inventory system; and its skill tree system. These are its only selling points. Let's examine them more closely.

1. Classes

Classes have long been central to Diablo, and while they're interesting enough in a multiplayer game, they add nothing to the singleplayer experience. The best thing I can say about D4 is that it does a good job streamlining subsequent characters on the same account, which might make Hardcore more enjoyable, but any points it wins in this regard are quickly lost again by having the game be so otherwise linear and dull. Every playthrough is exactly the same.

2. Inventory

Itemization in D4 isn't as horrific as D3, but remains a hideous slog due to an excess of drops and scores of boring item stats like +Overpower, +Critical Strike, +Lucky Hits, +Damage of X Type to Y Kind of Enemy While His Pants Are On Fire, plus the core stats. Are you having fun yet?

Having to return to town to sell items and get cash in the first Diablo is central to the process of clearing out the dungeon. Most of the best gear is available from the blacksmith, so turning a profit is vital. But in D4, any semblance of purpose has been utterly lost. I have 500,000 gold and more crafting supplies than I could ever possibly use, but I still feel compelled to return to the nearest town to sell all of my junk every five minutes--mostly because my inventory keeps filling up, and if I stopped grabbing loot, the game would basically be over.

Diablo 3 and 4 would both be better games without any inventory systems at all. Everything uninteresting is sold the moment it's picked up; the rest goes into the stash. There is no reason for sub-yellow items to exist anymore. Having to manage this shit adds nothing, but because Diablo has no identity as a franchise beyond "doing things the old games did," horrible inventory mechanics remain.

They have no purpose.

3. Skill Trees

Do I want +15% Critical Strike chance, or 20% extra damage to Frozen enemies, or should I make sure that I always have everyone on the screen vulnerable? If I do, then my every twenty-third Basic Attack against them in a row will give an extra 17.5% chance of an Overpower attack, and Overpower attacks proc a 2.7% chance (per talent level) of instantly Freezing my opponents!

Awesome! What the fuck is an Overpower attack again?

At least as a Sorceress, I found many of the skills--Meteor, Wall of Fire, and Blizzard--to be useless wastes of mana, and respeccing to try out different trees required so much thought and time that it quickly became lethal. I gave up and stuck to Frost for most of my playtime.

You will always be left to wonder if there's some other, more optimal synergy out there waiting for you. This makes experimentation and min-maxing pointless, because some asshole on IcyVeins with three Ph.D.s in math is going to figure it all out far better than you ever will be able to on your own. Thus the entire skill tree system might as well be a "let the internet design my class spec for me" button long-term, especially when playing in the late game.

^{In this game, you can walk over to a cliff AND THEN fall off it! Isn't modern technology immersive?}

I will tell you the single thing Diablo 4 has going in its favor: playing it requires almost no brainpower whatsoever, which makes it an ideal mindless game for podcast and audiobook listening. This was the singular ounce of praise I managed to find within my blackened heart for Diablo 2: Resurrected as well. But this fact is also the game's indictment: its only positive quality is that it is vapid and pointless.

Basically any action game ever made is more interesting than Diablo 4. Every boss fight, every quest, and every encounter will be exactly the same as the next. Frost Nova, hold down R2, watch everything die. Or, Fire Snake Ult, hold down R2, watch everything die.

Every trash wave. Every boss. Every dungeon. Every story mission. Everything.

I know people love Path of Exile for some reason, but I am going to boldly and aggressively proclaim that the isometric aRPG is extinct, evolutionarily supplanted by over-the-shoulder Soulslikes and brawlers such as Hades. It existed only as a 1990s stopgap between pen-and-paper RPGs and 3D graphics. Path of Exile and Torchlight can be made interesting through good graphics and animations, engaging progression systems, original ideas, good itemization, and fun worlds, but they will always be fundamentally lacking compared to more expensive, more thoroughly developed action RPGs like Elden Ring.

They can still be enjoyable. They can still be good games, especially for indie studios. But they are not $70 retail releases that take eleven years to develop.

(Note from 2026: with the releases of Path of Exile 2 and Titan Quest 2, I have to wonder how my bold assertion holds up. Neither game held my attention, but traditional aRPGs do seem to be having a resurgence.)

What it was about Diablo 4 that took eleven years to get right, I really can't say. Maybe their QA testers kept falling asleep. I had hopes that at least the animation quality would be high. Good animations, such as those in Heroes of the Storm, can make me overlook a lot of flaws in a game. But D4 doesn't have good animations. It barely has any at all. One for Core Skills, one for Basic Skills, maybe one or two more for various others. Don't expect your Sorceress to fling her wand in different directions while her hair bounces around and she dances on her tiptoes like Li-Ming. And why doesn't she? I don't know, but it's probably because no one cared. D2: Resurrected does this far better than 4, which is positively shameful.

It should be clear by now that I do not like Diablo 4. I find it mind-mulchingly boring, to such an extent that I don't even enjoy playing it while I listen to podcasts. It saps me of my will to live. I find its MMO elements totally pointless and its levels repetitive and odious to traverse. I hate its wretched dungeons and boring environments, and I can't stand the combat. The lack of any sense of progression drives me insane. It may be the only game in the franchise that I won't be able to finish.

And honestly, I'll say it: I even liked Diablo Immortal more.

By the way: Immortal

It turns out that I did have a phone after all, and I played Immortal for quite a few hours last year. While it was being mercilessly shat on by all corners of the internet, I intended to play my contrarian part and upload a positive review to this blog.

This was not because I wanted to be a provocateur, but because I actually kind of liked it. Despite horror stories of how maxing out a single character can cost the player up to $600,000, I played for 30+ hours and never once encountered a microtransaction. I don't mean that I never felt compelled to pay real money: I mean I literally never once encountered a microtransaction, ever, or any in-game shop. I don't even know what I would have paid for. It's all endgame shit, I think.

The contrast with 4 in this regard is rather alarming, because I played D4 for twenty seconds before stumbling upon its MTX real-money shop. That means Blizzard is even greedier than NetEase!

I played Immortal on my iPad Air 2 and enjoyed it a lot for what it was. I had the flu the week it was released and ended up spending a lot of time with it in bed. It was the perfect game at the perfect time.

It's true that Immortal is shallow, but it has good animations and art, some fun encounter design, and enough variety in the skill system to be enjoyable without overwhelming the player. I had significantly more fun playing the Wizard in Immortal than I did the Sorceress in D4.

The game lost me when I reached the late game and the XP-gain rate was cut to one one-millionth of what it had been earlier. There the MMO elements became more prominent, and I can't say I found them very compelling. In fact I found them confusing, and never figured them out.

I haven't felt any compulsion to return to Immortal since putting it down. I never made the conscious decision to quit, which is why I never wrote my review. But I enjoyed it for a week or two, and I'd say it's by far the best aRPG on iOS. And I didn't pay a single dollar for it, either!

So that's the hot take of this semi-review. D4 is boring and overpriced and I don't recommend it to anyone but masochists, but Immortal isn't half bad. Why not check that out instead? Don't you have a phone?

I've never played the original System Shock. I've never even tried. It's four years older than I am, and games from that era almost never hold up. Game design is an iterative process, and while the sensibilities of the 1980s and 1990s are worth re-examining, the games themselves are little different from silent films to us today.

But I have played System Shock 2. It's one of my favorite games. I'm also a tireless proponent of Prey. I have loved Immersive Sims ever since my older brother forced me to play Deus Ex as a small child. So, circa 2015, when a remake of the that-was-eight-years-ago-and-it-was-ancient-even-then game entered its Kickstarter phase, it became one of my most anticipated releases.

One year passed. And another. And another. At some point I figured it had been cancelled and forgot about it.

Then, last week, it came out.

Shocking Disappointment

About five hours into System Shock's new remake, I tabbed over to Steam so I could write an angry negative review. This, I proclaimed, was not what we were promised. Rather than an overhaul of the original into modern sensibilities, we have received a literal 1:1 remake. New graphics, modernized gameplay, and a few tiny improvements; all else remains unchanged. The level design has not been improved. The story has not been altered. The core experience is almost identical to what it must have been like thirty years ago.

The experience of playing System Shock (2023) is best described by analogy:

Imagine that id Software remakes Doom. It has relatively realistic animations. It has detailed environments. You can now aim up and down. The enemies are fully 3D and well-modeled.

But nothing else has changed. The levels remain identical to how they were in 1993. They are still confusing, labyrinthine, nonsensical video game environments. Voice lines have been added, but no additional narrative components, so despite now looking somewhat like a real place, the levels seem to have no connection to each other. Worst of all, despite being atmospheric in themselves, it's impossible not to notice how fake, gamey, and contrived the maps are when they are given such a makeover. You will never forget that you are in a video game.

This is exactly what Nightdive has done with System Shock.

Take a look at the above screenshot. Pay attention to the walls. Doesn't it all look a little square to you? Below is another example. Everything in the environment is made out of squares. Up and down. Squares everywhere.

Talos I in Prey is a real environment. It is a place where human beings once lived and thrived. The Von Braun is contrived in many places, but its overall layout and design likewise feel like how it might actually feel to wander the halls of a futuristic spaceship.

Citadel Station in System Shock does not feel like a real place. Its layout makes no sense. Its corridors are boxy and look like something made in Minecraft; they would only make sense in a world without circles. Except for a few archways, everything on Citadel Station is square: square walls, square catwalks, square doors, square floors. Everything is square. The walls are plastered with blinking green lights, and interactable switches are in strange places that make no sense. They're also impossible to tell from the environment, because the artists have opted to use the same shade of "click me green" for interactable objects and also the wallpaper everywhere on every level.

This is environmental design from 1994. It doesn't look like this anymore...

...but under the hood, it's the exact same game. The new graphics are paint, not a rebuilt foundation.

Conspicuous as the art design is, the painted-over nature of this remake is nowhere clearer than in level and mission design. At the very least I had anticipated System Shock (2023) to add in narrative components and an objective tracker.

This game has neither. You will be given a vague objective, and your only hints at how to accomplish it will come from audiologs scattered throughout the map. The information contained within these logs will not be stored anywhere for easy recall. If you ever forget anything, tough shit.

This might be forgivable if the objectives themselves were intuitive, but they are not. The process that one must undertake to reach Beta Grove practically necessitates a walkthrough. The only way you could ever figure it out by yourself is through wandering around every level, over and over again, clicking on everything you see, hoping you haven't missed anything.

Meanwhile, if you have missed something, you will be permanently stuck until you go find a walkthrough. "Obtuse" is not nearly an obtuse enough word to communicate what playing through this game for the first time is like.

And yet, when I look at the Steam page, I see the following description:

System Shock is the fully fledged remake of the ground breaking original from 1994, combining cult gameplay with all-new HD visuals, updated controls, an overhauled interface and all-new sounds & music; it even has the original voice actor of SHODAN, one of gaming’s most iconic villains. Witness the rebirth of one of the greatest and most influential games ever created.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/482400/System_Shock/

Nowhere in this blurb does it mention new level design or story. Nowhere does it say that they're taking a shit old game and making it good. In fact, the only part I can take exception to is “fully-fledged remake."

System Shock may technically be a remake, but it is certainly not fully fledged. In body and soul and spirit, it is nothing more than the world's fanciest remaster.

And is there anything wrong with that? Nightdive isn't pretending they've offered anything more than what they have. Can I really damn them for doing exactly what they promised to do? This isn't a new System Shock game; it's a prettier way of replaying the first one.

There are many things I hate about this remake. The cyberspace minigame is odious and repulsive. The Pipe Dream puzzles are utterly pointless. The inventory systems are unbearable. The dearth of tutorials leads to nothing but trial-and-error frustration. The inability to vaporize unwanted gear is baffling. The storage system is so token that one wonders why it's there at all. The core gameplay lacks any of the charm or versatility of System Shock 2 and the newer ImSims. Stealth is never viable, and the emphasis is always on shooting. The story is confusing, and there isn't nearly enough guidance, especially at the beginning. The amount of backtracking is malevolent. The level design is the worst of all: ugly, labyrinthine, and endlessly identical. You will often go exploring and receive nothing as a reward.

I could construct an entire review bitching about how badly designed this game is.

Congratulations, you've destroyed all of the cores! What we didn't tell you is that you were supposed to be writing down these little numbers all game. Have fun going back through all of Citadel Station looking for them!

But if I went back and played the original System Shock, those are the same things I would be complaining about. So is it really this remake's fault that it has them, too?

I don't know. You'll have to decide that for yourself. I don't feel the need to write an essay explaining why this game older than I am is shit; it basically goes without saying. It's shit because it's ancient. It would be like writing a diatribe on Charlie Chaplin. No one needs that.

What I can say is that the level design really should have been changed, and the environments needed to be less faithfully adapted. Some sort of simple objective tracker also seems like a mandatory addition to a game like this, even if it can be toggled on and off when creating a new game. Many more changes would have been welcome, but these are the ones whose absence makes the game so frustrating.

Yet I did beat it. And while I can't say that I had fun with System Shock (2023)--in fact I hated a lot of it--I was certainly glued to my seat. I felt like I couldn't get up until I had defeated SHODAN. And while I never want to launch it again, I am glad to have finally played--a faithful, almost entirely unchanged version of--the game that birthed my favorite genre in entertainment.

FATAL ERROR

What is absolutely unforgivable is the technical state of this remake. It is abysmal. I experienced ten fatal errors in my playthrough, two of which led to massive loss of progress.

In the first case, I played chess against SHODAN for two hours, losing over and over again; when I finally got the upper hand and was about to put her into check, she took five minutes to make her turn--and then the game crashed. From that point on, no matter what I did, any move would result in a FATAL ERROR. This caused me to lose out on an achievement, an extremely important inventory upgrade, and meant that I had wasted two hours of my limited existence. I eventually had no choice but to give up.

Another crash took place when I finished one of the final cyberspace hacking sections. Despite causing less than a ten-minute long diversion, this was even worse than the chess catastrophe, as I would have to replay the minigame.

The game is filled with bugs. It stutters and freezes constantly. If your two FoV sliders aren't set to the same number, your FoV will be reset to 80 any time you aim. Reload animations often play twice, and magazines will be empty upon quickloading for no reason.

For a AA production, I can forgive a large number of technical errors. But in a game like System Shock, the presence of so many bugs demolishes the player's confidence that he's the one missing something or making a mistake. By the end of the game, when I couldn't open a door, I was left to wonder if I had missed something--or if the door simply was bugged and wouldn't open.

This is a huge problem.

This is what you want: This is what you get.

The final song over the unskippable credits upon defeating SHODAN is a chant of, "This is what you want // This is what you get." Over and over and over again. "This is what you want // This is what you get," until any trace of music disappears, and there is nothing but those two lines ringing through your speakers.

I can't help but wonder if this is an intentional metaphor for the game as a whole, not-so-subtly inserted as a subliminal message at the end.

I wanted this game to be a full remake. I wanted it to bring the first game up to 21st century graphics, with gameplay and level design that were at least up to the quality of System Shock 2, if not Prey. This is what I want.

What I got is a brutally faithful remaster that modifies a few especially outdated things, like the graphics, and nothing else. It's a full-blown FPS that maintains nearly all of the warts and imperfections of the original, and is almost unbearable from the perspective of a Zoomer Gamer. This is what I get.

While System Shock (2023) doesn't play like a game from 1994, it absolutely feels like one. Reduce the poly count and lower the fidelity on some of the textures and I could easily believe this game was instead released c. 2000, or even earlier. I'm glad to have played it, but I never would have been able to beat it without a walkthrough, and I did not enjoy it very much at all. If you aren't familiar with the original from childhood, I think you would have to be an absolute madman to feel otherwise. System Shock is a rough, tiring, and ultimately mediocre game by the standards of 2023. The people leaving massively positive reviews on Steam are blinded by their nostalgia. I don't know what would have to be wrong with you to declare this game "ridiculously good," but it's something, really, really bad.

It is not worth $40.

I played System Shock (2023) on PC, with a copy purchased from Steam. All difficulty settings were Normal, and my total playtime was ~18 hours, or about 16 if we exclude the chess fiasco. It is available for purchase here.

In high school I put hundreds of hours into Mount & Blade: “Napoleonic Wars.” This semi-mod multiplayer DLC expansion for Mount & Blade: Warband introduced me to the Napoleonic Wars and ignited my lifelong passion for Napoleonic history and musket marksmanship. The thrill of twenty second reloads beneath the blare of aggressive Beethoven cannot be beat.

My favorite game mode was always Commander Battle. Herein the player controls a regiment of twenty to fifty soldiers in a ten-on-ten battle. Bannerlord has this today, but 19th century technology makes for much more interesting maneuvering than gigantic melee brawls. Line shootouts and cavalry charges, smoke clouding the air, player-managed artillery, and no respawns: this is the experience that only Mount & Blade can deliver.

For the last decade, I've always come back to Napoleonic Wars. It is one of my favorite games of all time. But an eon has passed since its release, and it is mostly dead today.

So a hole remained in the genre of mount-and-musket multiplayer mayhem. It is therefore unsurprising that newer, prettier games have rushed to fill the gap.

The obvious direct successor was Holdfast: Nations at War. Holdfast is fine; its shooting is excellent, and I’m glad it’s so popular. But the lack of advanced melee mechanics ruins it, and it has no Commander Battle. For all of its huge battles filled with white smoke, I’ve never found it half as fun as the original “Napoleonic Wars.”

A slightly different take on this kind of game is the forever-EA War of Rights. Instead set in the US Civil War, War of Rights is a line battle simulator, with a heavy emphasis on local voice chat and roleplaying. I kickstarted the game eight years ago, and am sad to report it's received almost no new content since then.

Most engagements in WoR consist of 300-yard shootouts between ranks of Secesh and Yanks, where the resolution on my monitor is too low to actually render whoever I'm supposed to be shooting at. Your time will be spent reloading and firing off toward smoke clouds. There's no scoreboard or pop-up when you kill someone, so you'll never know if you’ve scored a hit. Because reloading is a simple animation--and not somehow mechanized with an active process--you're mostly doing nothing during this time except staring at your screen, hoping you don't get shot.

When you are inevitably shot, or blown up by artillery, it'll be from someone so far away you couldn't have possibly have seen him. Then respawn and do it all over again.

I enjoyed WoR approximately eight years ago when its alpha was first released. Its heavy emphasis on realism and simulation has some kind of value, and I'm glad to have played it. But it is not what I would call a "fun" game, and it does not come anywhere near the brilliance of “Napoleonic Wars.”

The other noteworthy entry in this strange genre was Blackwake, an 18th century shooter/slasher pirate simulator developed by a very small team. Blackwake was a phenomenal game, but its population has utterly collapsed. It’s totally unplayable today. You won't find your musket fix there.

There is one other game in this genre.

Developed by Napoleonic Wars' original team at Flying Squirrel Entertainment, Battle Cry of Freedom is a near-identical recreation of the original Warband DLC that ignited its own niche multiplayer genre, reskinned for the US Civil War.

It is the best of them all.

Shouting the Battle Cry of Freedom

Blue coats line up across from gray. Bayonets are affixed beneath barrels. Stocks are brought to shoulders. There are hundreds of men on the field, but only twenty players: they can be identified by their epaulets and sleeve insignias (for North and South, respectively). Each commands a legion of bots between ten and one hundred strong.

The command is given to fire at will. The ranks ignite, and streaks of orange lightning shoot from white powder stormclouds. The thunder of death follows. The kill feed in the upper left floods with a tsunami of names both red and blue. You take a hit to the neck; a gory death animation plays, and your regiment is now without its colonel.

That's okay, though. You had a captain as a backup. You take control of him next. And so forth, down the line, until no one but a private soldier is left; and when even he falls to musket fire, respawn and do it all again.

Battle Cry of Freedom is the first musketry-based game since the original Warband DLC to let players lead swarms of bots. Choose your regiment, from Berdan's Sharpshooters to the 54th Massachusetts (of Glory fame) and the Virginia Military Institute, and lead them to victory--as an officer, on the ground. Do this all as Civil War-era music (courtesy of the 2nd South Carolina String Band) thunders through your speakers, just as Beethoven did in the lost days of Napoleonic Wars before.

Commander Battle is the most notable feature of BCoF. But like its predecessor, it also features normal Battle, Siege, and Deathmatch modes, where players go head-to-head as individual soldiers. When the playercount supports them, these are as much fun as they ever were in “Napoleonic Wars.” An attention to detail and focus on historicity, without yielding gameplay to "realism," makes BCoF relentlessly fun. A suite of Civil War-era weapons gives variety, while intelligently designed maps force interesting engagements with minimal time-wasting (my biggest problem with both Holdfast and WoR by far).

It has some problems. Latency, mouse aiming issues, and performance troubles have never been solved. Worst by far is that BCoF never seemed capable of supporting a large enough population for any game mode other than Commander Battle.

But earlier this year, the game's 2.0 update added cavalry and significant polish to the extant systems. The game went on a deep sale, and thousands of new players started playing. For a solid two week period in March there were regularly 300 players in Siege and Battle game modes. The ensuing mass musket mayhem is the most fun I have ever had in a multiplayer game. A shootout when neither side can afford to miss makes every press of the trigger thrilling. A 100-player team deathmatch is so much more enjoyable with muskets than with assault rifles.

I told everyone I knew to buy the game. I raved about it endlessly. I was so busy playing it that I barely found the time to eat and drink. Those two weeks were glorious.

And then everyone stopped playing.

Where have all the players gone?

It happened overnight. On Sunday, two hundred players were in a single server, duking it out over control of the Alamo. The next afternoon, the count was down to forty. A week later there were hardly ten people online.

An attempt to revive the game with another sale saw a day-long resurgence, but Battle Cry of Freedom has been almost completely dead since then.

Where have the new players gone? I don't know, but gone they are.

It's true that a lot of polish is still missing. Performance in particular is still very poor. But the community seemed to be thriving. Chat was full of players, like me, astonished by how much fun they were having. We collectively dissed Holdfast and War of Rights. I thought these players would be here to stay.

They weren't.

It's always tragic when a good independent game dies. I don't know why it happens. Blackwake thrived for years. Now literally no one plays it. It's understandable for “Napoleonic Wars,” although sad, because newer titles have supplanted it. But Battle Cry of Freedom is the best game in its niche. There is nothing else on the market except War of Rights, which is a very different kind of game.

Yet War of Rights, despite its total dearth of content and meaningful updates, has 200 people online today. BCoF has eleven. This inevitably leads to new players giving the game a bad review on Steam and creates a vicious feedback loop.

I hate this so much. If I could choose any game to be stuck with forever, it would be this one. But it seems like there's no way to reverse its decline.

I don't suppose I wield much influence as far as these things go. But I wanted to write this up to say: please, buy Battle Cry of Freedom. Play it. Savor it. And to everyone at Flying Squirrel, thank you for making this game. I pray that it at least made enough to support whatever comes next. Whatever that is, I will buy it the moment it enters Early Access.

Today I have finally beaten Planescape: Torment. Over the course of my life I have undertaken this task approximately as many times as the Nameless One has been reborn from death. The furthest I ever got was in college, when it came out for iPad. I reached Ravel Puzzlewell’s maze and promptly lost interest.

This incarnation was far from my first. I made it partway through Sigil who-knows how many times in my childhood. Always my older brothers would assure me that Torment was the best cRPG and that I had to beat it. As I grew older, this sentiment seemed to be found everywhere online. Thus again and again I would try, and again and again I would fail.

As a child, my main objection was that the Nameless One wouldn’t put on a shirt. As I grew older, I started to hate the gameplay instead.

Despite all this I knew that if I just sat down to finish the game, I would enjoy it. I knew so many RPGers weren’t wrong. I knew Chris Avellone was a great writer. I just had to get it over with.

Now it’s done. And it seems that everyone was right. The final act of Planescape: Torment is brilliant and moving and is the best climax of any RPG ever made. You will find hundreds of video essays on YouTube explaining why. Avellone and his team paved the way for games that give actual characters for the player to inhabit, rather than empty sacks of meat, and in so doing set the stage for games like KotOR, Mass Effect, and finally The Witcher.

But although I loved it in the end, Torment was not easy for me to get through. I’m glad my time with it is over. My playthrough felt a lot like eating my vegetables. I knew I had to do it because it was good for me; and while I wanted to know how it ended, I was never especially engaged with the plot itself until the very last moment. The story is mostly just asking questions to a long line of NPCs, which I don’t find especially engaging. The dialogue trees themselves are very poorly constructed, and the text itself is enormously overwritten.

Originally I was going to compile examples of both of these sins. I thought that I should bitch about this game as old as I am like I usually do.

I won’t this time. I have no desire to nitpick this game, or explain why I found it hard to get through, because the reality is this: it’s old. It’s dated. It has a lot of problems. Everyone can see that. You can see that for yourself. But unlike with Fallout 2 or Diablo 2, the love Torment receives is no mystery. I have no desire to deconstruct it.

Torment is far from my favorite cRPG. I like it a lot less than Fallout 1, and about as much as Fallout 2 (2 and Torment are bad for many of the same reasons). I don’t think it’s as good as Torment: Tides of Numenera, and I think Avellone’s more recent examination of the same themes in Prey is far defter.

But I am glad to have played it. And I hope someday, as I flounder with my writing career, I can come up with something anywhere near as compelling as what Avellone manages in the final few hours of Torment. Like KotOR 2, here is a game that could desperately use a remake.

What can change the nature of a blogger?

For years, through all of high school and college, every time I watched a movie, read a book, or played a game, there ignited within me an unquenchable desire to analyze and deconstruct whatever I had just consumed. This fire was at its brightest after the shitshow launch of The Last of Us: Part II; it became so intensely hot, so blinding and destructive, that I had no choice but to launch this blog. Everyone had to know why that game was so terrible.

For a while, I felt similarly about everything I was exposed to. The result is the long catalogue of posts on theplayeristhething.com. I took far more joy in the analysis of a thing than in the thing itself.

In recent years, that joy has seriously waned. This blog has been maintained more out of a sense of obligation than desire. The energy that a review requires has seemed so much better spent on my fiction than on complaining about things on the Internet.

I’ve been contemplating this for a while now, but Torment has driven the point home. At first I had written out an entire essay bitching about the dialogue trees from this game released in 1999. But who fucking cares? Modern games have vastly improved that part of RPG design. It's not an issue that needs discussing. Obsidian innovated and figured out how to write games like this after Pillars. So who cares?

Not me. So it's not worth the time or effort. I don't really care, and neither do you (if you even exist). Creation is far nobler than deconstruction. I think I’ll do that instead.

Exactly twelve years ago I bought Dead Space 2 for the Xbox 360. I loved it, and the moment I was done I bought the first game for PC on Steam. I loved that, too. I liked it even more than the second.

In the time since Dead Space has remained one of my favorite franchises. Although it seemed to be abandoned after the poor reception of Dead Space 3, the joy of chopping off necromorph limbs and shooting glowing sacs of amber has never left my heart.

I've tried but always failed to replay the original game since 2011, mostly due to mouse acceleration issues in the PC version. Over a decade later and I’ll confess that I remember almost nothing about it, except set pieces here and there. I've wanted to go back to it, but when I saw that it was soon to be remade on next-gen, I held off. I would wait to play it on my new PS5.

Now the day has come. Ten years abandoned and Dead Space is at last reborn. So how is it? And is it worth $70?

Few games are. But what I can say is that Dead Space (2023) is a good, mostly faithful remake. The graphics have been redone, the gameplay re-refined, a few weak sequences strengthened, and the narrative completely rescripted--all in an effort to capture the feeling of the original. We fans of the franchise will appreciate it as a love letter delivered after a full decade of silence from EA, and new players will find it much more accessible and less frustrating than going back to the game design dark ages of the 360/PS3 generation. But this new release hasn’t attempted to fix many of the systemic issues with Dead Space (2008), and problems that have lingered for fifteen years remain yet unsolved.

Fifteen Years Later

Dead Space may at first seem like a survival-horror game. Spooky dead things jump out at you from vents; enemy corpses rise for jumpscares when you get too close; the levels are dark and claustrophobic; and ammo, health, and energy are always limited. This was no doubt the intention in 2008, and so it is here.

I remember the original being moderately scary at age 13. I cannot figure out why. Dead Space has a single formula to startle--as indicated above--but never once contemplates true horror. Compared to a game like Alien: Isolation, the gameplay is much too focused on combat to be anything but an action shooter riff on System Shock 2. Necromorphs are too comprehensible and killable to be terrifying, and while the game is certainly disgusting, the violence, in which limbs fly off left and right as if attached by Elmer’s Glue, is too absurd to be anything but fun.

Rather than an engineer, protagonist Isaac Clarke might’ve more realistically been a janitor. That is what he spends most of the game doing: running around, fixing other people’s messes, cleaning up zombies. Despite now being voiced he rarely feels like a true agent in the plot; he is instead beholden to circumstance, otherwise forced to comb through area after area in search of bugs to squash. The moment he accomplishes an objective, something out of his hands goes wrong to conveniently reset his progress and prolong his suffering.

Survival? Maybe. Horror? No.

Dead Space is no Prey (2017), but it has a decent Immersive Sim-esque overworld. This element has been expanded in the remake, and for the better. But the main plotline objectives within that world are oppressively tedious. Levels are protracted to the extreme. Most involve wandering around atriums and corridors, looking for the right button to press or the single glowy thing to shoot.

Wait! No! Not that glowy thing! That’s not a proper glowy thing, even though it is a thing that glows! You’re looking for the slightly glowier glowy thing!

Everything after Hydroponics became a chore to me for this reason. Isaac feels less like a cool action hero and more like an errand boy. There’s one section in which you have to repeat the same basic task eight times. Eight times. Twice was plenty. Four felt like a lot. But eight?

I can’t remember the original well enough to say definitively whether or not this remake’s level design has been improved. It is different in a few places, and my hunch is that the changes are for the best. Yet even so, the levels feel old. Despite the graphics and tight gameplay, Dead Space still feels like an old game. It feels like it’s out to waste time and keep players busy, rather than entertain. The levels are too samey and too full of busy work to be exciting.

After Hydroponics the encounter design falls into an almost-rhythmic trance. Any time you spot a necromorph, begin by turning around. Another one will be standing behind you. Without fail. These zombies, who are so braindead they’ll follow you into traps, cryofreezers, and giant walls of fire, are also so intelligent that their ambushes are always executed with flawless coordination.

And it isn’t just while navigating corridors. In every arena, in every fight, necromorphs will spawn in behind you. It doesn’t matter where you are. If you see one enemy, turn around.

This isn’t scary. It might be startling the first time it happens, but thereafter it’s predictable and frustrating. Endless anal spawns are what makes the second half of Dead Space so exhausting. The encounters become formulaic and repetitive.

The new graphics are excellent at building ambience. The sound design is satisfying, and what little music there is has strong Alien vibes. The lighting above all else is spectacular. But non-stop action is antithetical to horror, and unlike real horror games, Dead Space never presents an issue that can’t be shot to death (or cut into pieces, frozen, and easily evaded). Most missions are no more complicated than “shoot at the glowing orange thing until it isn’t glowing orange anymore.” Occasionally you will have to press X instead.

This is the same problem I recall having with the original. Dead Space wants to be a horror game, but it isn’t. It’s a shooter in space. I have no problem with that, and in fact this is the reason why I am among the elite few who like Dead Space 3, but the muddied identity is a big problem that was crying out to be solved in a remake.

It wasn’t. But this franchise has never understood what it is. That might actually be part of its charm. On that front, Dead Space does not disappoint.

Similarly, survival elements are only successful at first. Supplies matter. The game never gives you free health. Resource management is vital. Backtrack for more loot and more credits or risk getting stuck. I particularly like the progression scheme: find schematics and power nodes to upgrade your equipment, and choose whether to focus on weapons, armor, or simply restocking supplies whenever there comes a moment of rest. Dead Space, and its remake especially, does exploration and advancement better than any other entry in the franchise.

But by the end, smashing boxes to get loot becomes frustratingly formulaic. Whenever you see a blue, kinesis-able box, smash it open to find: ammo for one of your guns, credits, or a stasis pack. Maybe a medkit, if you’re lucky. There’s never nothing. There’s never a teddy bear meant for delivery to some kid, or a new PlayStation 75, or a HelloFresh order. It’s almost always ammo.

By the time I smashed my last crate, I was ready to never smash anything again.

As for ammo, Isaac is only allowed to carry four weapons. But there are nine weapons in the game, and crates will aggressively give you ammo only for the ones you aren’t using. I followed my memory’s intuition and focused on upgrading the Plasma Cutter; by the time I had power nodes in every slot, the designers were refusing to give me any plasma cutter ammo, ever. Instead I found myself with infinite amounts of Line Gun and Ripper ammunition. I can’t stand the Line Gun, but I was using the Ripper--out of necessity--throughout the whole game. Yet even despite this I never ran out of ammo for it, unlike the Cutter, which could only be usefully loaded up if I spent a fortune at the shop.

Forcing interaction with the clumsy inventory system to constantly swap out weapons is severely grating, but I was left with little choice. This was an element of Dead Space clamoring to be remade. Either let me carry every weapon at once, or rework the system to allow real specialization. This might also have allowed rectification of the jarring fact that, in a game where every detail of the UI is painstakingly represented diegetically, Isaac can pull sniper rifles and laser guns out of his invisible pockets.

That didn't bother me in 2011. But in 2023, something slightly less ugly would’ve been appreciated.

Note: it has since been brought to my attention that the game won't, or at least won't so aggressively, give you ammo for any gun you put in storage in the store. Thus I could have dumpstered the Line and Force guns where they belong and alleviated this particular issue. Even so, inventory management in this game is a huge chore by the end, and no number of shopping trips will change that.

Story Time

The new narrative elements may or may not be an improvement. They are different, but whether that is preferable will come down to the player in question. Eliminating Isaac’s vow of silence certainly helps smooth the transition between the games in the trilogy, but dwelling so long on his tragic backstory, involving his mother and Unitology, added nothing for me except cutscenes I wished I could skip. He and the rest of the crew are still altogether devoid of characterization; they talk more, but they don't feel more human. What is there to Isaac Clarke? What are his traits? Who is he? And what about the rest of the characters? Why don't they ever seem scared or concerned? What’s up with all that bullshit with Chen? How stupid are these people? How does one necromorph cause so much damage in the narrative when Isaac, an engineer, can effortlessly dismember endless hordes of them? And why don't they ever attack the other NPCs?!?

Shoving more words into everyone’s mouths has slowed down the pace, but hasn’t actually addressed any of these underlying issues in storytelling. At best the game has gone from underwritten to overwritten. Both are bad, but I do prefer the former on balance.

You can get a sense of what I mean by comparing the openings here. Is the new version superior? It's longer. There's more dialogue. The important expository details are certainly easier to miss. But it isn't obviously better or worse. It's just different.

I prefer the old version. But maybe you won't.

Giving Isaac a voice and a backstory enables some level of investment in the search for Nicole. There was no reason to care about him or his girlfriend at all in the original. Yet all things are trade-offs, and introducing more talking into the game exacerbates problems we might not have otherwise noticed.

Throughout this remake I found the dialogue, especially from Isaac, to do a poor job capturing what real people would really say if they found themselves in such a horrific situation. Dead Space’s script is tolerable, and it’s certainly no Forspoken, but never once did I believe Isaac’s reactions to the game’s horror, and to the necromorphs more generally. His words weren't truthful. They didn't strike me as authentic.

Writing that dialogue was never going to be easy. I doubt I could do it well either, which is why I won’t be hyper-critical. But cutting out Isaac’s tongue did something to alleviate this problem previously. Giving him his voice back instead brings it straight to the surface.

More broadly, allowing Isaac to be the super-engineer he is ultimately leads to his ideas being the ones that save the day. There is a reason why the original wasn’t structured this way. To enter a puzzle and have Isaac himself explain what to do is mind-bending, especially when you yourself are yet to figure it out. Either I want to be the one to devise the solution, and Isaac can inform the other members of his team once I have; OR I want someone else to tell me what to do, and then Isaac can, like a player character, do it--under my instruction.

So the rescripted dialogue is underwhelming. I would’ve preferred that it wasn’t changed. But it’s no worse than mediocre, and however generic Dead Space’s plot is, its narrative components remain at least sufficient to impel the player through the dismemberment simulator and toward the final boss.

What does bother me is that they gave Isaac a new face.

The changes to the narrative were unnecessary, but they weren’t pointless--the developers were trying to rectify a perceived issue. But why change Isaac’s appearance? Even if structural alterations were necessitated by the use of facial mocap, which I think is EA’s corporate wording, why give him different hair? Why remove his gray? Why shave his beard? These changes, unfortunately, do little but make Isaac feel like someone who isn't Isaac at all. This would seem to defeat the purpose of giving him a voice, if the intention were to make the original more consonant with the rest of the trilogy.

Alive Space

By the time I beat the final boss last night, I was screaming into my PS5 controller. I was dead sick of ping-ponging between identical objectives, suffering constant pointless setbacks, and having monsters spawn behind me where I went. I was desperate to be done with Dead Space.

But this morning, as I started on my review, a strange desire to start an NG+ playthrough bubbled up in my gut. It hasn’t faded since. Despite frustrating level and encounter design and unnecessarily tedious inventory management, Dead Space remains a good game. I don’t think it’s scary, but it is an enjoyable sci-fi survival shooter, just as it was back in 2008. I was sufficiently engaged that I didn't feel the need to distract myself by taking notes, even as it began wearing on me. That is more than I can say for God of War: Ragnarok.

Dead Space is good. It’s an excellent remake of a great, but old, game. There are numerous minor changes--like the ability to open doors while using kinesis--that most people won't notice, but do a great deal for QoL. It solves some but not all of the original’s issues, and otherwise stands well enough on its own. On PS5 it runs at 60fps with an adaptive resolution, which sometimes causes Isaac’s hardsuit to become N64-levels of pixelated, and presumably the horrific mouse acceleration issues on PC have been rectified.

For those latter reasons the remake is worth it. Framerate alone gives Dead Space (2023) a reason to exist, which The Last of Us: Part I did not have. But as ever with remakes we must ask ourselves: did we really need this? Did we need new dialogue and new graphics for the outrageous price of $70, for a game that was already pretty good?

This time I think the answer is yes. Most other critics seem to agree. But I do think it could've been even better. Not as a remake, but as a stand-alone game. That's my real frustration. I didn't want Dead Space: Again, I wanted Dead Space 4. But for now, I'll settle for what I can get. Dead Space (2023) is still far better than nothing.

I played through the game on normal difficulty on PS5 over the course of two days. It took about eleven hours, and I did everything: every door opened, every sidequest completed.

EDIT: After finishing this review, I played the game again, and had an enormous amount of fun. I would revise my overall opinion to be much more positive. Dead Space (2023) is a great game. But it’s definitely not perfect.

About a month ago the long-awaited Isonzo came out on Steam. Isonzo is the third and final entry in BlackMill Games’ World War I theater trilogy, which officially began in 2015 with the release of Verdun. Like Verdun and Tannenberg before it, Isonzo is named after the most notable battle of the game’s front—in this case, the Battles of the Isonzo that took place between 1915 and 1917.

I say ‘long-awaited’ in reference only to myself. I feel as though I had this game on my wishlist for an eternity, checking back every few months to see if a release date had been announced. Whether or not anyone else felt the way I can’t say, although it’s my impression that Isonzo is doing reasonably well on Steam despite its esoteric subject matter.

If it is, BlackMill and the publisher M2H have earned it. I love Verdun, I adore Tannenberg, and I like Isonzo. Last year for the 11^th of November I reviewed the former two, so now that I’ve had time to play about fifteen hours of the newest game and make it to level 20 on my first class it seemed an excellent opportunity to write up my thoughts.

Battlefield Won

Players of the previous games will at once notice upon arrival on the Italian Front the generational leap in production value. When I first played Verdun’s demo for free in a small window on my PC in 2013 I thought the graphics and mechanics were both decidedly independent in quality, however compensated in historicity and design otherwise. The same held true for Tannenberg.

Isonzo is a revolution. The gunplay is completely overhauled to rival or perhaps exceed a Battlefield title in fluidity. Every shot is satisfying, although the sound design is still sometimes underwhelming. The graphics, while weak in places (some explosion effects and environmental textures can be shoddy), are on the whole spectacular. The feeling, the spirit, the essence and soul of this game, is AAA—not Eurojank independent. Animations specifically are vastly improved over previous titles.

The overall structure of play is altered from the previous games’ formula too. Rather than eight variable squads that, of themselves, are largely unchanging, the teams are composed more like Battlefield. Squads are fluid; there are a set number of roles per team (two officers, four snipers, five assaults, etc.) but each role has a customizable loadout, complete with an XP progression scheme and a selection of perks and myriad unlockables.

In Verdun, I played the game to have fun playing the game. In Isonzo, I play the game to earn loot.

I’m of two minds about this. Verdun and Tannenberg both technically have an unlocking scheme for classes, but it's so token to be pointless, and I like it that way. Progression isn’t what keeps me coming back to the multiplayer games I like. In fact it’s often what keeps me away. Locking cool historical guns behind 15 or 20 or perhaps even more hours of playtime does not enhance the experience of the player, when the player has chosen this game because it has such cool, historical guns.

But as far as progression schemes go, this Battlefieldification of Isonzo is fairly good. The player must reach certain level thresholds to discover weapons and perks, then complete challenges to actually unlock the weapon or perk in question.

I found this compelling enough during my time with the game, but it’s completely unnecessary. I don’t need this. What does it add? For cosmetics I have no problem, and challenges might be an interesting way to give objectives to the player. But for loadout selection? I don’t know.

In general I prefer the old games’ structure more than what they’ve done in Isonzo, as I prefer Tannenberg over Battlefield One. In some real sense Isonzo feels more like a real game, and for that I find it less enjoyable.

Let me elucidate.

Historical Authenticity

As its predecessors, Isonzo excels in authenticity. You’ll find no black lesbian Italian infantrymen here, unlike in Battlefield One. The firearms, maps, and uniforms are all carefully researched. These are accomplishments worth recognition.

But while I don’t know the long-term plans for the game, the selection of weapons seems comparatively weak to me. Each side receives one revolver, two automatic pistols, two or three indistinguishable bolt actions, a machine gun, and a few melee weapons. There’s also a breach loader, but only for the Austrians. The Italians receive fewer weapons across the board, and so far I think what they do have is worse. Their revolver is simply inferior to the Austrian's; their LMG is weirder and more awkward; their default automatic pistol is way worse; and while their rifles have a larger magazine capacity, their sights are shit relatively.

But I also decry balance. If one side had better weapons historically, that should be replicated in these games. I have no objection to that. Plus the Italian Glisteni M1910 pistol kicks serious ass.

Still, the need to create moderately balanced classes has eliminated the ability to create joke loadouts with weird guns, or no guns at all, and to some extent I feel accuracy has been yielded to gameplay. Overall Isonzo wants the player to usually, if not always, use the weapon that feels most optimal for the situation, while Verdun would seem to suggest, “A Reichsrevolver is the worst possible firearm in any situation you can imagine, but wouldn’t it be fun to have one? They really used them, you know!”

The class restrictions can be frustrating, too. My favorite gun in Tannenberg was the Roth-Steyr pistol, a weird stripper-clip loaded automatic pistol from the early 1900s. It's a really cool gun--and it's in Isonzo!

...if you're playing the Austrians. And you're an Officer. Even after it's been unlocked, you can't use it on any other class, and there can only be two Officers on either side at any given time. In other words, the Roth-Steyr basically isn't in Isonzo, unless you create a custom server and play against a bunch of bots. Otherwise your odds of being able to use it are 2/64

But don’t let me sound too negative. While I feel like there could be more firearms, what is present in Isonzo is impeccable. The guns look fantastic. The reload animations are immaculate, and for the first time in the series they differ on empty magazines. I also love how slow they are. In fact unlike in Tannenberg, the memey revolvers with loading gates like the Rast & Gasser actually feel competitive for a change, since they hit hard and fire fast. My only complaint is that sprinting still cancels reloads and forces them to reset; surely, by 2022, we have the technology for reloads to resume mid-animation?

Also, the Beretta is complete shit.

Fuck this pistol. Worst gun ever.

The Butchering of the Bots

In Tannenberg especially the servers are always deserted. That’s fine, though, because each missing player is compensated for by a bot.

A bot, whose performance in marksmanship is approximate to Helen Keller's.

Contrary to being a detriment, this is actually a primary appeal of these games for me. The bots are bad. Killing bad enemies is easy. Killing enemies with cool old guns is fun. Therefore, playing against bad bots is fun.

I won’t pretend it isn’t.

Isonzo’s player count is much healthier than Tannenberg’s ever was, but I played largely on empty servers after being steamrolled by real players in an attempt to capture the magic of the previous games. And while I did to some extent, I found myself encountering the problem of the aimbot-bots.

The bots in Isonzo are all cheating. They’ll 360-noscope you the second you come into their field of vision. Their accuracy is pinpoint over vast distances. They tend to move in great schools, like Krauty fish or flocks of feather-capped birds, and behave in bizarre ways that make them far harder, and less fun, to play against.

They’re still not as good as real players, except at aiming at close and medium range. Then they're like jackal snipers on Legendary. They almost never miss. Their rifles are lasers. They are way more capable than the accura-phobic AI that was in Tannenberg, and to be honest, I don’t find that an improvement.

The Game Mode

All three of these World War I shooters focus on one single game mode: trench warfare, dynamic maneuver action, and now mountaintop assault.

“Mountaintop assault” translates to Battlefield’s Rush game type, but turned into an entire game.

At first I was impressed by the maps and their variety. They’re long and have numerous different phases. They look gorgeous. The detail is amazing for what must have been a fairly low budget production, and still isn’t a full price release. There are also a decent number of them in total.

…but there’s only one game mode. It’s just Rush. Over and over and over again. Endlessly. Forever.

I never find myself getting tired of Maneuver in Tannenberg. Trench warfare in Verdun is exhausting, but that’s sort of the point. Yet here in Isonzo I'm bored of the single gametype already. I’m tired of the give-and-take. It’s slow, sluggish, static, and most games with real players don’t make it past the first offensive phase. Those that do seem to fall into the new meta of sneaking past the frontlines and backcapping the objectives, which is borderline an exploit due to how spawns work but happened to me a dozen times last night.

I don’t mean to suggest Isonzo’s levels are bad. They’re not. They’re very good for what they are. But are they an entire game?

All I can say is that after fifteen hours, they—and their single Rush gametype—are wearing thin.

The Long Road Ahead

Gameplay improvements make Isonzo much more accessible than its predecessors. BlackMill have managed to do this without seriously impeding on the game’s authenticity. They've created an excellent, enjoyable, historically satisfying World War I FPS to round out their trilogy. I would recommend Isonzo to anyone who enjoyed Battlefield One in particular--but would prefer something a bit more grounded going forward.

But with Isonzo BlackMill has also lost some piece of the soul of their previous games. The result is probably, even undeniably, a better multiplayer FPS. There’s less jank. The mechanics adhere to more conventions of the genre. The mechanics are less confusing. The are more cosmetics and the progression scheme actually matters. In the abstract, everything should be excellent.

And it would be excellent, if it wasn’t for that I’m the kind of person to loads up Tannenberg to take potshots at Krauts with Smith & Wesson Model 3s in Single Action—not to gain XP. I’m the kind of person who slides into every single open class during a round of Verdun because I want to get a few kills on the RSC, the BAR, the sawn-off SMLE, the Chauchat, and the MP18 before I log for the night. I’m the kind of person who uses the Roth-Steyr because it’s awesome and who always prefers the single-shot blackpowder rifles because they’re more fun and feel weirder and more anachronistic.

I don’t play these games to win. I play them because I like cool, old, weird guns, and I enjoy the simple, unpretentious FPS gameplay.

Isonzo has cool, old, weird guns, and it has unpretentious FPS gameplay. But for me it’s lacking in simplicity. And that’s why, for the most part, I think I’ll spend my time going back between Verdun and Tannenberg still, while I’ll only occasionally load up Isonzo. Isonzo has far better gameplay. It’s more fun, on the most basic level. It looks better. It feels more polished.

But in becoming polished it’s lost a lot of its charm, and the rough edges were what drew me to the first games. So I doubt I’ll play all that much more. But then I've given up on Battlefield, Call of Duty, and even Halo multiplayer at this point, so I'm hardly an authority on shooters anymore.

You should still pick it up, though. Isonzo is available now on Steam for $30. You’ll probably like it. Even if you don’t care about history, it’s a solid FPS, and I've enjoyed my time with it.

EDIT: One year later, I still find myself going back to Isonzo when I have nothing else to play. It holds up, and the regular content updates are fantastic.

Last July, about a month after The Burning Crusade: Classic was re-released, I wrote that I was incredibly impressed by the general improvement TBC demonstrated over the original Classic experience. The expansion held my attention better than I could have ever anticipated. Everything was better. Better balance. Better dungeons. Better progression. Just better.

I ended up finding a great guild after writing that post and played for another three months. I did Gruul and Kara every week. I continued to enjoy myself. But by the time Phase 2's release approached, I was getting bored. Ultimately I rage-quitted following my 15th clear of Kara, when, for the 15th run in a row, the Nathrezim Mindblade refused to drop.

25% droprate. 15 runs. I never once saw it (until, of course, my final run in preparation for Wrath, when I no longer needed it). By that point my frustration was no longer about the weapon--which wasn't that huge of an improvement--but over the absurdity of RNG-based loot in a game where loot is the only method of progression at max level.

The Burning Crusade lost me then. I couldn't take it anymore. I had my fun, and I played hundreds of hours, but I left right before Phase 2 and did not return until the Wrath pre-patch. And that was fine. I didn't need to experience Black Temple or Serpentshrine Cavern. That really wasn't necessary.

But Wrath? That brought me back.

Wrath of the Lich King

The pre-patch launched at the end of August. With it came myriad gameplay changes, including complete overhauls of class balance and the new Death Knight class. They tell me DKs were not originally in the pre-patch, but that Blizzard decided to include them this time around to spice things up.

Some weeks before this I had woken up early one morning with knots in my chest. A haze of nostalgic anxiety overcame me. I felt a deep yearning like I was a child once again--and with it a primal, instinctual urge to play a Death Knight.

This fit of excitement over Wrath didn't last long, but it was enough to keep me excited for August 30 anyway. Arthas was my favorite character in Warcraft 3 as a kid, at least tied with Kael, and in my brief flirtations with WoW growing up I always tried leveling DKs once the option availed itself. I must have played through the DK starting zone thirty times as a tweenager, including twice during the Wrath beta.

So the date came and so I made my DK. I named him Korakos, after the deuteragonist from Manaseared, and set to work leveling through TBC as Frost spec.

I liked Korakos. I liked him a lot. I liked him even more than my mage. He promptly became my main once I hit 70, and on him I experienced most of the late-game TBC content I had missed. The only raids I didn't end up beating were Black Temple and Sunwell Plateau, and only for a lack of available groups. I did tons of PvP and ground out a full set of Season 4 Brutal Gladiator gear, and I even had some good luck with loot: on my first and only visitation to Kharazan, I made a forever friend:

In general TBC content with endgame gear and Wrath talents was trivially easy. My mage used to top charts every raid with around 1.2k single target DPS, and that was as high as I could go in a long, sit-down fight. After the pre-patch I was doing 1.8k single target without any clue how to play.

Still I can say safely that this month-long period of reveling in the full release of TBC, finding groups and doing raids and spamming Alterac Valley, was the most fun I've ever had in World of Warcraft. I played over 100 hours in three weeks. If this was what Wrath would be like, then it surely would be as good as people said.

The Best Expansion

Everyone agrees that Wrath was and is the best expansion. Certainly everyone I know. The reasons are obvious from the outset: improved class balance over the previous two iterations of the game (an understatement), good raid content (or so they tell me), and better paced PvP. Personally I had much less nostalgia for it than TBC; while I leveled countless DKs to 60, I was old enough by 2008-2009 that I no longer watched my brother on raidnights, and I had next to no familiarity with any of the content.

Well. Now I do. It's been two weeks since the official release of Wrath of the Lich King: Classic. Korakos is level 80 and has done one raid and every Heroic, while poor Saline is still only level 73.

Wrath is certainly not without its merits. The core gameplay is greatly improved over TBC. Every class is viable and, more importantly, way more fun. I suspect this is why it is held in such regard. The zones are gorgeous and the ambience enveloping. There is even a story. But after two weeks, I feel compelled to take a break from my actual work writing to report that I do not think Wrath is very good.

In fact I think it's bad. I don't like it at all.

Let's start with the core leveling experience.

In TBC, the XP required to reach level 61 is extremely low. You'll level up within two or three runs of Hellfire Ramparts. After that it slows down significantly, but this jumped-up start has the effect of allowing the player to get his new abilities for the expansion right away. Earn your new toys. Start experimenting with them.

Wrath has no such pacing. Every level requires 1.5 million XP. Every mob in Northrend gives ~1000 XP on a kill. Every quest--from 70 to 80--gives 20,000 XP. If you're level 79 and you skipped Borean Tundra, that's going to be faster than heading up to Icecrown. Guaranteed.

This monotony does not so much amplify the slog of questing as it does turn it into lava. Viscous and deathly to the touch, leveling up provides no sense of progress anywhere in Northrend. As if to intentionally make this worse, the systems in place even punish you for gaining levels, as special stats like +Crit score decrease in potency as you increase in level. In TBC this was compensated for in gear; here, I started Wrath with 34% Crit on my DK, and after 24 hours at level 80, I'm still down around 25%. If I ever get it back up to where it started, it will be at the very end of the expansion.

Losing Crit--annoying for a Death Knight, terminal for a Fire Mage--while I'm supposed to be embarking on new adventures and increasing my power level is agony. It feels like shit. It's frustrating and ruins the fantasy of progression. It makes the whole game feel (even more) pointless.

And for skills in training, who knows what logic has gone into their placement. At 73 my mage still can't make any water worth drinking. She hasn't earned any new skills unique to Wrath except Living Bomb, which is from a talent. On my DK the two most important skills I earned while leveling were Empower Rune Weapon at 75--good--and Army of the Dead at 80. But Army of the Dead is a useless piece of shit that has no utility whatsoever except while questing. Why was it at 80? Why not 79?

The pacing makes no sense.

The zones themselves are horrific. Wrath was Blizzard's first attempt to make questing more """"engaging"""" by varying mission structure, objectives, and introducing vehicles. The end result is a miserable nightmare of bad level design. The more complicated quests in Wrath are simply atrocious. As tedious as "Slay 25 Gnolls" and "Retrieve 90 Murloc Spines" are as objectives, they feed back into the primary gameplay loop: kill enemies, get XP.

Turning yourself into a hawk and stealing eggs from gryphons? This has nothing to do with the gameplay of WoW. It's shit.

I cannot stress enough how bad vehicles are. Often you won't have any idea what you're supposed to do, even after reading the quest text; the game will want some very specific action to be performed; nothing about your stats or talents will matter; even if you do everything right you could fail, because for some reason vehicles are where the real difficulty of Wrath lies; and the vehicle itself will inevitably be buggy and poorly implemented, so you might even do the correct thing but not get credit once the quest is done.

One or two shitty vehicle quests could be tolerable. But I did the math and there are precisely elven hundred and seventy eight million of them spread throughout Northrend. They also often come as the conclusion to large chains, so you have to do them to get the best quest rewards.

I hate vehicles. They suck. Stop.

The other attempts at designing more engaging quests are variously more and less successful, but they inevitably have the result of overcomplicating the objectives to such an extent that: 1) you'll never be able to figure out what the designers want by just reading the poorly-written quest text; and 2) you'll actually be required to pay attention to the game, which is the last thing I wanted from WoW.

I listened to nearly every single book written by Thomas Sowell while leveling in TBC last year. It was a fantastic experience. Despite spending almost as long leveling in Wrath, I only managed to make it through one audiobook--George Orwell's Road to Wigan Pier. I had to keep pausing what I was listening to because the game was demanding too much attention.

That might sound like an odd criticism. "The game is making me play it too hard!"

But WoW isn't good at being a complicated 'real' game where I have to pay attention. It's good at being a grind-a-thon that I play while listening to audiobooks. By demanding more attention from me while questing, the designers aren't making questing more fun--they're just making it less like WoW, while also not making it any better. Then each quest will inevitably come with some item that you can only use once every 30 seconds, slowing everything down for no reason, and all the while you'll simply be wishing for a dwarf who can send you off to "Kill 900 Lion Cubs" for old time's sake.

Some zones are better than others. Borean Tundra and Sholezar are the best designed, while Zul'Drak is without any question the worst. There's an entire chain in ZD filled with some of the most poorly designed vehicle and "fun" (there aren't enough terabytes in the world to render the scare quotes required for that word in this context) quests in all of WoW history. The vehicles don't work, the objectives are unclear, each mission takes ~20 minutes, you can only do one at a time, there are no mobs to kill for XP, and in the end they reward about 10k XP a piece--or half of what any other quest would, including simple fetch quests in Sholezar.

The whole zone is like it's designed to troll the subscriber base.

Clearly some less than capable designer at Blizzard was responsible for Zul'Drak, while the people who knew what they were doing worked elsewhere. It's interesting how clearly that shows through the gameplay. Unfortunately what isn't interesting is Zul'Drak.

Meanwhile you'll be doing dungeons to supplement your XP while leveling up. I like dungeon spam. DPS races, meeting new people in groups--all of my best memories from the previous expansions were from dungeons.

But Wrath's dungeons suck Sindragosa's frozen ovaries. Every single one is full of bosses with raid-like mechanics, except they're also all trivially easy; these mechanics serve no purpose but to drag out the fights and make the levels long, tedious, and boring. Even worse, they fuck up every class's rotation; I can't get off my Empower Rune Weapon combo when Anub'Arak disappears like an asshole every time we deal 20% of his HP as damage.

There is a severe dissonance between the level design and the systems design in these new dungeon boss fights. I do not like any of them. Every single dungeon in Wrath is bad.

The Endgame

But everything I've bitched about so far is really just the start, because the real problem with Wrath is that it represents the moment World of Warcraft was ruined. I thought it would be the pinnacle of old WoW and then the descent would begin thereafter, as is often said--but actually that's not the case. The real reason why I'm so frustrated with Wrath of the Lich King: Classic is because it's clear that this is where the chorification begins.

In TBC, the Heroic dungeons at level 70 were insanely difficult. They were way harder than Kara. They were only easier than Gruul and Mag by virtue of lacking the logistical difficulty of coordinating with twenty extra retards to make sure no one stood in the fire. Heroic dungeons were my favorite part of The Burning Crusade. They tested every player's skill. They gave great loot. They were a completely new way to look at the game. They demanded play at a high level while also being accessible, and they opened up a non-RNG based progression schema for the game--something it desperately needed.

Wrath doesn't have Heroics. It says it does, but it doesn't. What it does have is level 80 versions of every dungeon, and each is a daily chore.

The "Heroics" in Northrend are trivially easy. They're fast. Anyone can do them. They require no coordination, despite the theoretically more complicated mechanics on the new bosses. The message is clear after a few days of playing: you aren't supposed to struggle through this content, gradually powering up, overcoming whatever obstacle you've been stuck on for weeks.

No. You're just supposed to log on every day, farm through every single Heroic dungeon, then go to bed. Because Wrath isn't about progression. It isn't about difficulty. It isn't about fun, certainty. It isn't even really about loot. It's just about chores.

We all know, retrospectively, that this is the course WoW went down. But it breaks my heart to see it. This twist on the formula of the first two expansions makes me furious. While I'm not a fan of the grind, it had its purpose, and what was it replaced with? A treadmill that's ten times bigger and a thousand times more pointless.

By the way, through making Heroics trivially easy and removing the requirement from TBC, they've made it so there's never any reason for a level 80 to run a normal version of a dungeon. This makes it functionally impossible to find groups for the dungeons in the high-70s, like the Culling of Stratholme, because the pool of players is so massively reduced. Yet another reason why leveling in Wrath is nightmarish.

And Pointless Changes

So it's probably clear I don't especially like Wrath of the Lich King so far. I don't hate it, but with the exception of the most fundamental level of gameplay balance, I think TBC did absolutely everything better. This fact therefore makes it rather strange that I would feel the need to complain about the pointless changes Blizzard has insisted on shoehorning into their newest iteration of Classic, but I never pass up an opportunity to whinge.

WotLK introduced the game's first version of the cross-server dungeon finder. This sped up leveling massively and was a huge QoL improvement, but was controversial because it splintered intra-server communities and ruined a lot of what made Vanilla so great. This is what nerds have argued, at least, for over a decade on the forums.

Apparently Blizzard agreed. So they removed the dungeon finder. In its place they introduced a group finder tool, as thus:

The Group Finder is a usable but clunky piece of shit that really could just be automated...like it used to be. I would be fine with a removal of cross-server searching, but designing a new tool was insane. No one wanted this. The rallying cry for Classic was "NO CHANGES!" They stuck by this all through TBC; why was this where they drew the line?

But the door was opened. Now Blizzard can't stop making stupid, pointless changes to Wrath. They've introduced "adventuring supplies" as random rewards for quests, which give shitloads of potions and various other bits of junk. At launch these were giving so many potions that they actually had to tone it down massively, so now the supply packs are basically useless.

Why? Why add this? Remember "NO CHANGES?" Why?

Then, of course, there's gender selection. They've removed the male and female options in character creation; these are now replaced by the much more progressive silhouettes of male and female bodies. Incidentally they have gone through and, like Winston Smith, made this woke change to WotLK Classic--while leaving the male and female symbols in Shadowlands! Retail is unchanged! You know, the game that's actually supposed to be under development?

Controlling the past is actually more important to these fucking lunatics than controlling the present.

Hey Blizzard, STOP FUCKING WITH THE GAME.

Oh, and you can have sex changes at the barber now.

Just what we always needed. Actually I'm rather offended that they included this without the option for a free name change to go with; aren't I being deadnamed by the game whenever I look at the top left corner of my screen, if I really did want to change my character's sex? Seems pretty transphobic of Blizz to me. I should start a Twitter campaign.

It isn't that I care so much about individual changes, although it happens to be the true that all those mentioned above are bad and should be reversed, but that I simply do not trust Blizzard to improve Wrath Classic without fucking it up. I think the evidence already speaks for itself. Sure, there might be improvements that could be made--but do you have faith that Blizz in 2022 can both identify and implement them?

If you do, you can have fun with Overwatch 2. Unfortunately I'm not quite so insane to believe that yet. If I see another blue exclamation mark on my minimap, though, I might get there.

Apathy

I've played a lot of Wrath over the last two weeks. And ultimately, the game has left almost no impression on me. In the opening of this post I indicated that I appreciated the atmosphere and ambience and musical design of the zones--but I don't, really. The zones look fine. They're fine. They're just fine. But they don't compare to Nagrand, or Zangarmarsh, or Netherstorm, and certainly not any of the Classic zones. I included that line only because it's what everyone says about Wrath. But I don't really believe it myself.

It's almost like it didn't happen. Like I'm forgetting about it already. While I found much of my leveling to be deeply frustrating, I enjoyed it because I like WoW. But it was just okay. I don't feel compelled to keep playing, really, although I'm having a decent amount of fun with my mage now. I don't want to run any more Heroics. I'm not that interested in raiding. The endgame has completely lost me. And the leveling itself--it just wasn't that interesting, or original, or fun. It was like a Call of Duty campaign.

TBC wasn't like that. Even Classic, which was often miserable, wasn't like that for me. But Wrath was.

My disappointment is hard to convey. This was my most anticipated release of the year. To find the expansion little more than a laundry list of tedious dungeons and hair-pulling chores is almost unbelievable. This is what people loved? Really? I don't feel any of the magic of the last two games. It's completely gone. What's replaced it seems so bland.

But that's Wrath of the Lich King: Classic. I'm not quite done with it. Maybe the best is yet to come. But I doubt it.

My first exposure to Starship Troopers (1997) was via, of all things, Roblox. This was before Roblox was whatever it is today, c. 2009, when it was a piece of shit web app with less than zero functionality which no one but a few weirdo kids knew about. My friends and I would play on a cool sci-fi server with custom mods wherein waves of bugs would attack a desert outpost and you, Robloman, would drop down on ships to fend them off. I ended up joining the clan that ran this server; they called themselves the Mobile Infantry, and for a few months I went to all their roleplay events.

It was months before I learned that the "Mobile Infantry" were from a movie and that all this lore hadn't been made up by sixth graders.

So somehow or another I got my hands on Starship Troopers and, immediately, fell in love. I thought it was awesome. The satire wasn't lost on me, either; even as a kid I found it very funny, as a parody of militarism--but of course it wasn't hard to look past that, to focus in on how fucking badass it is to kill bugs.

Fast forward to 2022 and I still love the film. Verhoeven is one of my favorite directors. I've also since read the book, although it bears no relevance whatsoever on this conversation. So I was delighted when Starship Troopers: Terran Command was announced last year: a bug-killing RTS in the style of Dawn of War 2 where the player takes control of Verhoeven's Mobile Infantry and clears the planet of Kwalasha of Arachnid forces.

There have been multiple video game adaptations of Starship Troopers over the years, few of which are well-regarded today. I have not personally played any of them so I will refrain from commenting any further. What I will say is that the Zulu-esq blasting of bugs at sci-fi Rorke's Drift, what Aliens: Fireteam Elite goes for, makes more sense in this franchise than with xenomorphs, which are much too badass to be gunned down en masse like Arachnids.

Terran Command

Terran Command is a real-time strategy game with a focus on unit control. Base management is minimal to altogether absent in many missions, mostly concerning which units the player would like to requisition in what order. 'Supplies' for purchasing new squads of soldiers are rewarded by exploring the map or through completing story objectives. They are also dedicated to units, rather than spent, so that once a squad is killed its 'cost' is refunded and another can be called down in its place.

This can be done instantly, but each unit is given value through persistence by an experience system. The more bugs your soldiers kill, the more veteraned they become. At level three they earn a new ability and receive increased combat capabilities.

There's decent variety among the units: basic Mobile Infantry for mid-to-close range, Engineers with flamethrowers, Mk. 2 soldiers with more firepower but who are vulnerable in melee, Snipers, Officers who can give buffs, Radio Operators for calling down dropships, high powered Plasma Gun Dudes, and by the end power armored Apesuits and Marauder mechs. Most missions will involve leading some combination of these soldiers through cave systems, canyons, ravaged MI bases, or the open deserts of Kwalasha as Archie is driven from the lands.

When Terran Command is at its strongest the player is forced to defend a single point. He will arrange lines of fire based on the terrain and the varying range and weapon types of his units and wait for the bugs to come.

Watch on and smile as fire pours from the muzzle of each MI's rifle and destruction rains onto the enemy. The death animations for each Arachnid are supremely satisfying and do a phenomenal job capturing the spirit of Verhoeven's film. When an infantry squad blows apart an encroaching Warrior, it looks just like the movie.

When it comes to moving from static defenses, however, Terran Command cracks. Its systems of micromanagement is unrefined. For example your soldiers won't fire while moving unless you use Attack Move. However, if you do use Attack Move, they will continue to move to their destination regardless of whether or not there are hostiles present, marching right into melee range, where they will be promptly eviscerated.

This is a game where most of the enemy is melee, while all of the MI is ranged.

There's never any reason to not shoot at the bugs while moving, but the logic of the control schemes doesn't reflect this. The one exception is the Marauder mechs: they do stop moving at range when they come into contact with an enemy during A-Move, which is the exact opposite of what you want, because the Marauder mechs have melee range flamethrowers (and are also invulnerable, more or less).

If Arachnids so much as touch your units in melee they're toast. Replacing casualties is easy, but regardless of difficulty a single brush with a Tiger is lights out for your level three Mk. 2 squad. Since bugs have a tendency to erupt spontaneously from 'bug tunnels,' and to flank you from strange places, the often awkward and inelegant controls can and will lead to immense frustration. I found it impossible to keep Radio Operators alive, ever, because they would either march to the front and die instantly or get caught in the back by flanking units and die instantly. It should also be mentioned that every unit has at least one active ability to start with; good luck remembering to use it while babysitting pathfinding and target priority during a fight.

Early on in the game, when Arachnid unit types are limited and the player controls nothing more than squads of Snipers, Officers, and basic MIs, these problems are minor. But as the story progresses and things become more complicated, Terran Command becomes seriously frustrating.

SWATing Bugs

Like the MI the Arachnids have a number of 'special' units: Plasma Bugs for artillery, Tigers for heavy infantry, Spitters for long range, and worst of all the dreaded Scorpion, which I'll get to momentarily. These special Arachnids, especially the ranged variety, force you to leave your fortifications and break your lines of fire. This then forces you to engage with the game's awkward micromanagement schemes and often dysfunctional pathfinding programming, which then makes you grapple with the strange systems of targeting oncoming units, which often leads to all of your units becoming stuck on each other and not shooting anything while they let themselves get slaughtered.

This would be less pronounced of an issue were it not for the design of the special Arachnids themselves. They do tremendous damage to the player's units, often at vast ranges, and for some reason these long-range bugs also have the best armor, and by far the most HP.

Consider the Scorpion.

These boyos shoot plasma from their tails. They're also nigh invulnerable and have a habit of attacking in groups of sixty or seventy thousand. A single blast from a Scorpion will annihilate a unit of MI troopers. It'll also nearly kill a Marauder mech (which are otherwise almost completely invulnerable, as above).

It will do this from vast far range.

There is no way to kill Scorpions except with Rocket squads. Your Rocket squads will also never target Scorpions on their own if some other target is closer by because there is no AI for target prioritization whatsoever; all must be done manually. Even on Easy, which I reduced myself down to from Normal after becoming frustrated around mission ten, there were several levels that became absolute miserable slogs because of idiotic Scorpions. The balance is way off. They do way too much damage and are way too hard to kill.

But as I said, the real problem with ranged Arachnids is one of design principles. At its core, Terran Command is about, and at its strongest, when defending fortifications or fending off waves of melee Warriors and Tigers. Being forced to move from fortifications by bugs that outrange you neither adheres to the fantasy of Starship Troopers as a film nor makes sense from a gameplay perspective, because moving around these troops is clunky, awkward, and miserable.

Although I liked the game at first, I was ready to be done by the halfway point. Marauder and Apesuit spam trivializes the final missions, and while it's fun to send in the mechs to slaughter hordes of Arachnids by the thousand, it gets old fast. Any large scale combined arms operation in Terran Command is severely soured by the awkwardness of the controls and the poor enemy balance. I would have preferred sticking to defending my forts.

Verhoeven's Legacy

As for the story, it's what one might expect from a game trying to ape the tone of Verhoeven's film. The Federation is a comically militaristic and oppressive space empire which treats its citizens poorly and has no regard for the lives of its soldiers. One of the better missions is about recovering an escaped insurrectionist, bringing him back to a fort, and fending off the bugs while his execution is televised across the galaxy. Silly, but apropos. What the story tries to do is simple and mostly low-brow, but it works, and I even smiled a few times.

Yet I found the overall thrust of the story to be very weak. Each mission is disjointed from the last. We have the bugs on the run! Oh no, there are more bugs! Fend off the bugs! Ah, we're losing! We've regained our foothold! We have to clear out the caves! Once last battle to defeat the bugs! Wait, I guess there were more after all! Etc.

There's some kind of through line to the narrative of retaking Kwalasha, but it's exceptionally weak. The levels do not flow into each other in a logical way. This is one consequence of the way characters are handled: there are only three (the Major, the Colonel, and the Psychic), and they're never physically present on the map. They can never die and never fight alongside your units. Yet despite this they'll rather strangely make comments such as, "Whew! It stinks down here!" which will lead to you wondering if, maybe, they are supposed to be present somewhere after all.

Really these three characters are nothing more than narrators. They tell you what to do and that's about it. Outside a few moments they rarely matter and I can't assign any real qualities to any of them, beyond the fact that they feel right for this world and they're passably written. There is one nice moment at the end that does a lot to bring the story together, but it's not enough to prop up the whole game. I wish they had done more to construct a single cohesive plot.

What I wish they had done less of is stupid annoying cutscenes. There are tons of them in this game, all of which interrupt the flow of the missions. While I like being narrated at by the Major and the Colonel, I cannot stand it when control is taken away from me and I'm forced to look at some place in particular. That is a recipe for my neighbors to overhear me shouting at my monitor at 2am.

Conclusions

Starship Troopers: Terran Command is short. It took me about ten hours to beat. It has no multiplayer, no custom games, no co-op, and beyond its 20-mission main campaign, only two additional scenarios to play. It's also cheap, at $30. As an imitation of the tone of the 1997 film it can be considered a success both in narrative and gameplay, and at times it's a unique and enjoyable RTS. More usually, though, it's a clunky, cheap, and awkward game to play, with poorly designed enemy types and terrible unit controls.

For fans of Verhoeven's Starship Troopers (and RTS games), I'd recommend it, maybe at a discount. For those who don't care about the franchise and just want a new RTS, I advise you stay far away. Because Terran Command isn't very good. It's mediocre and often frustrating. The final six missions are an awful slog, and if you're like me you'll be wanting the game to end long before the credits roll. Even at $30 I'm not sure it's worth it. I almost didn't have the will to beat it myself, and I love this franchise.

Terran Command is available on Steam here.

Apparently 2022 is the year of the turn-based tactics RPG. It's May and so far I've played Wartales, an excellent but still Early Access game about playing a mercenary captain; Chaos Gate - Daemonhunters, which I reviewed several weeks ago; Expeditions: Rome, which I just bought but haven't yet played; Solasta: Crown of the Magister, a decent D&D5E adaptation for the PC which I've been meaning to review; the upcoming Hard West II, sequel to the mediocre Western XCOM-clone; and now King Arthur: Knight's Tale, a dark fantasy adaptation of Arthurian legend.

After a week of solid play I've finished the latter. At first I was shocked that the game received such mediocre reviews. As a tactics game it stands out from the vast bland ocean of its peers. Despite a multitude of issues with narrative there's plenty to praise. Yet as the hours ticked by the tide receded, revealing the rotting carcasses of countless salmon lodged in the shores alongside non-biodegradable six-pack yokes. I realized then that I had to write a review of my own. So here it is: my opinion on Knight's Tale after having finished the main campaign and most, but not all, side content.

The Beginning

In King Arthur: Knight's Tale, you play Mordred, the man you might remember as Arthur's arch-nemesis from that unit in high school you slept through. Immediately after dying, Mordred wakes up in a dank dungeon on the Isle of Avalon, upon which the Kingdom of Britannia has been mirrored in a perverted afterlife-like form. With Arthur mysteriously missing Mordred declares himself king of the New Camelot and sets about recruiting a neo-Round Table, with new knights inspired by characters from across all Arthuriana--living or dead.

Except Arthur. His soul has been split in four. You have to kill all four of his soul shards for some reason. Also he's a dragon.

Spoiler alert.

If this all makes no sense to you, playing the game won't help.

In other words, in King Arthur: Knight's Tale, you don't play King Arthur, but King Mordred. It also has nothing in particular to do with a "knight's tale," since this is in fact the tale of Arthur and Mordred after their deaths, and so would more fittingly be titled "Kings' Tale." In consonance with this rather bizarrely chosen name, the game itself has very little to do with Arthurian legend per se beyond flavor. In effect it looks and feels like a Dragon Age dark fantasy--which, to the designers' credit, is how it's billed. The one notable trace of Arthurian legend is the cast, which is to say the names, and not much else.

Fortunately I don't give a shit about Arthuriana. Dragon Age is as good as Britannia as far as I'm concerned. If King Arthur gives a place for the designers to start, then so be it.

Roleplaying Game?

I want to home in on the narrative first. Narrative is what pulled me into Knight's Tale, but not for long.

This is a roleplaying game. As Mordred drives out the Skeletor who was keeping him imprisoned in Camelot's dungeon, he is given his opportunity to declare himself King of Avalon (or wherever), and you are given your first choice: are you Good Guy, or are you Bad Guy?

Good Guy (AKA 'Rightful') and Bad Guy (AKA 'Tyrant') are thankfully signalled to us with little lion and boar heads, respectively, so we always know which option is which. This is useful because the first option we're given, as we declare ourselves king, is an identical sentiment--both result in you declaring yourself king. But one is good, one is bad. For some reason.

In addition to Good Guy and Bad Guy you also choose between Pagan and Christian, so that in effect the game has a four-way morality axis thus:

For no particular reason I played Bad Guy Mordred, I suppose because Mordred is supposed to be one of the ultimate Bad Guys in English literature--and also because I chose the Tyrant option at the start of the game. At this very moment my costs were sunk; I stuck to my guns from then-on.

You'll notice that these choices are not cosmetic. The story doesn't branch, but thresholds of morality give certain rewards, including unique companions and special mechanics to change your playstyle. A Tyrant Pagan , for example, is the only player who will unlock Sir Dagonet. This is the reason I went with Pagan ultimately: Morgana le Fay seemed a considerably better prospective companion than Sir Galahad. In addition to special unlocks, each companion has his own morality, and your decisions will affect his loyalty--and thereby his performance in the field of battle.

I don't regret my paganism, but sticking to Tyrant ended up a mistake. Bad Guy Mordred gets the Red Knight and the Black Knight. Neither of these are well-known or well-defined characters from Arthurian legend. To the extent they are characters at all, it's as archetypes, or general epithets used by a number of different personalities. How exciting!

Neither the Red Knight nor the Black Knight proved remotely interesting. Meanwhile, Good Guy Mordred gets motherfuckin' SIR LANCELOT.

Man. Who would you rather have on your roster? The Black Knight--some random guy you've never heard of--or SIR LANCELOT?

All that said, I like this system. It adds an element of replayability, and although the narrative doesn't seem to branch per se, your morality does make a difference to mission availability: an entire end-game sidequest chain for me was about tracking down and killing Lancelot. Presumably this would not have been available had Lancelot been in my party. (Although you never know.)

It should be noted that, like so many of these games, Bad Guy ends up equating to "pointlessly evil," while Good Guy equals Jesus. But then legend rarely is the place for nuance.

Beyond morality points, your decisions in dialogue and event trees matter for nothing. This is what ultimately soured me on the story, and is a recurrent theme throughout the rest of the game. Another event: a wall of text, then four options. One gives Good Guy, one gives Bad Guy, one gives Pagan, one gives nothing. I need Pagan to get to Morgana faster; ergo, I choose Pagan, regardless of text.

Not only do I lack an incentive to read and engage with the text, but in fact I have a disincentive, because it doesn't actually matter--my conclusion is foregone by mechanistic necessity.

I wasn't bothered by this for the first ten hours of the game. But thereafter, there was too much. Too many events. Too many dialogue trees. Just too much. Like Daemonhunters, Knight's Tale is flatly overwritten. The characters need to shut up, sit down, and stop talking.

Magyar Mayhem

Years ago I read an Ursula Le Guin essay in which she derided the modern fantasy author who writes dialogue for princes, kings, and fantastical heroes in the same manner he might write dialogue for the man who sells hotdogs on Capitol Hill. I can't find this essay to quote from it directly, but it's stuck with me ever since as something obvious--yet a rule often broken in pop culture.

King Arthur: Knight's Tale doesn't break the rule so much as it tosses it into a volcano and watches it bubble away like the One Ring alongside Gollum. The dialogue in this game is very poor. It rarely feels setting-appropriate; your companions say the wrong things in the wrong ways; they never feel like chivalric knights from the Middle Ages. They, including Mordred, say things like "also" and "anyway," using casual and modern speech that is horrifically inappropriate.

This comes as no great surprise. NeocoreGames, the developers, are Hungarian, and either the translation is bad or they spent no kingly sum on their writers. I take no especial umbrage at this for a AA game, yet all the same I have to ask, if you aren't going to take the time to ensure a good translation, why you would INCLUDE SO MUCH DIALOGUE?

Every word is voice-acted, too, by the way. Every single word. They saved by recycling the same three VAs over and over again (all with gruff American accents for some reason), but I still can only imagine the cost of so much production--and all for what? To hear Mordred say, "I was going to kill you, hahaha! Anyway, let's go do the adventure."

Cementing your rule over Avalon is a decent conceit for a story. I like a lot of what the narrative is doing. But there was too much in the end. Too much dialogue, too poorly written; I couldn't sit through it all. The world was confusing, too, and I didn't understand what was happening even when I was paying close attention.

Consequently I skipped almost every line of dialogue except in the final confrontation with Arthur pictured above (spoiler alert). Doing this made the game drag quite a lot more, unfortunately--but listening to it all would've been even worse.

I don't know how else to summarize my thoughts on this topic than to quote the final words of the game back at you:

The fight for Avalon is over, but the battle has just begun.

Firstly: this is a cliché. Generally one does not want to end their story on the note of a cliché.

Secondly: they didn't even get the cliché right. "Fight" and "battle" are near perfect synonyms. The actual expression corrected would have been,

The battle for Avalon is over, but the war has just begun.

Even this makes no sense because Avalon is completely self-contained, so if the battle for Avalon is truly over then so too must be the war. It may be that the intention is more along the lines of: the [war] with King Arthur may be concluded, but there are many battles yet to come. That would make far more sense, given the ending's foreshadowing.

I can only assume this all makes much more sense in Hungarian. If it doesn't, then Neocore, you really need to hire better writers. Like me. Hire me! I'll move to Hungary!

The Isle of Avalon

Rather than a spaceship or military facility, Mordred's home base is Camelot. Each quest earns you Gold and the evocatively-named Building Resources with which to renovate your facilities. There you'll train, equip, treat, and cure your Round Table that you've gathered from across the realm. Four knights go out at a time, and while Mordred is required for story missions, you can send anyone out in any combination otherwise.

All this requires micromanagement in the extreme. Every knight must be individually placed in training, individually told to set his broken arm, individually told to heal his Vitality pool, etc. With that caveat it's an engaging overworld. The upgrades make significant enough differences in the tactical gameplay to create ambivalent decisions, and resources are scarce enough to make those decisions matter. You won't have everything, even after the credits roll.

From the overworld you select one main mission at a time, or, if feeling underleveled, from a slew of side missions. As far as I can tell these side missions are not optional, as I was nearly underleveled by the end despite sending the same four knights on every side quest as soon as it was available. Focusing purely on the main story would result on being massively underpowered, and almost certainly make the game impossible before long.

Events occur every few missions. These involve either sending a single knight out on a quest of his own for a single adventure, or resolving some morality decision.

You'll want to earn the loyalty of your companions for powerful bonuses to their capabilities on the field of battle. Take their traits under consideration while you're deciding if you're a Good Guy or Bad Guy. Then sort through your loot and gear them up for the next quest, presuming they haven't sustained any injures that need healing.

Be careful that they haven't. If Vitality reaches zero, the hero in question is permanently killed--and Vitality damage doesn't heal except through time spent at Hospice.

I like the overworld in Knight's Tale. It could be deeper, but for fulfilling the fantasy of Arthurian roundtable management, it comes extremely close to what I would have wanted. You feel like a king, making decisions, gathering retainers, renovating your keep. You feel powerful. Regular returns to the map of Avalon is where Knight's Tale is strongest, where the interplay between tactics and strategy matters most.

Turn-Based Tactics

King Arthur: Knight's Tale is a melee-focused turn-based tactics game. There are four classes: the Defender, the Champion, the Sage, and the Arcanist, which might be analogized as the Protection Paladin, the Arms Warrior, the Battle Mage, and the Mage Mage, but the reality in-play is more complicated. Every character on your roster is a hero who must be recruited--a distinctive, voice-acted personality from Arthurian legend, from Mordred to Sir Lancelot to Morgawse and Guinevere. While each will fall broadly within the archetypes noted above, their skills are shuffled around, and each feels different in important ways.

On the ground, your characters have a number of action points depending on their equipment and how heavy their armor is. Spend these on abilities, movement, and attacks. Balance your Armor and Hit points, and make sure your Vitality never gets too low: if it does, you'll begin to sustain injuries, and if it reaches zero, you'll die--forever.

I found the systems engrossing, especially as the game progresses. Early on there isn't much to do but reserve AP and wait until the enemy approaches. Later, though, Mordred becomes Zeus, unlocking the power of thunder and lightning. His mother Morgawse proved to be my favorite knight with her ability to conjure thunderstorms and smite people across the map with shards of ice. By the final battle with Arthur I was regaining AP left and right, casting mass AoE, teleporting between strikes with Sir Kay, dominating the battlefield.

Between fights you navigate the map in a Dragon Age: Origins-reminiscent fashion. I quite like the graphics, which are dark and atmospheric and full of visual effects of leaves caught in whirlwinds, flickering fires, and trees quivering in the wind. The whole game has the atmosphere of a chilly autumn day.

A bit like Dragon Age: Origins, though, you might find yourself overwhelmed by the sheer number of abilities at play. I restricted myself to the four knights you see screenshotted above, as well as Boudica and Sir Ector when occasion demanded their substitution in due to the injury of a principle player. Remembering each active ability wasn't so challenging, but keeping the dozens and dozens of passive effects straight proved too much for me.

Each active ability has four potential passive skills, with many more passives on the tree. These range from minor to playstyle defining. I like the trees overall: they're well-designed and mostly interesting, with minimal boring or throwaway enhancements, or at least enough gamechangers to make those few that aren't exciting less offensive by comparison.

But it isn't within my capacity to remember the entire skilltrees of twelve different knights and all their respective changing passive abilities, and also their active abilities, over the course of a campaign. This design philosophy works only with the provision that the game wants you to focus on a handful of characters while neglecting the rest. Indeed the plentiful lack of XP to go around would indicate this is just the case.

Yet one wonders why there are twelve knights at all then, and why we have XCOM-like permadeath mechanics in the first place, if this is the case. There seems to be some degree of incoherence in the systems in this regard. The whole game is about gathering a new Round Table: why are we limited to only four knights the whole time? It doesn't quite make sense.

At the end of the day I think what NeocoreGames has is good, but I can see how it might have been better.

Difficulty Rating

I played on normal and enjoyed the gameplay a lot. Let me be clear as I proceed that I think King Arthur: Knight's Tale is an excellent tactics game. But there are serious issues worth consideration with the pacing, level design, and manner of difficulty curve on display--issues which detract from the overall experience so much that I went from wondering why the reviews of this game were so mediocre, to unfortunately agreeing with them entirely.

The essence of all Knight's Tale's problems can be distilled more or less along the following lines:

The missions in this game go on for way, way, way too fucking long.

Let me give an example.

The Lady of the Lake sends Mordred to close four portals in the woods. To get to the woods, you need to fight two major battles with eight to fourteen enemies each. These battles take between five and ten minutes. Then, to reach the first portal, you need to fight another battle of similar length. Then, at the first portal, there's another battle, this one the largest so far.

At this point you've been in the adventure for half an hour at least, and you feel like you're done. But you glance at your objectives and realize it says: Portals Closed (1/4).

So you head back out into the woods. You wander around senselessly for a while, stumbling into more battles, all of which are the same, until you finally clean up every last portal. By now it's been over an hour and your brain is melting. You need the break of returning to the overworld. This quest has gone on for so long.

"But wait, Mordred!" cries the Lady of the Lake. "Hear me! You must now fight the Ultimate Portal Boss Monster!"

Thus you're teleported to the REAL final boss of the quest, and another ten or so minutes passes before you're finally set free.

Almost every mission in the game follows this structure. Countless battles, most of which are indistinguishable, in quests that go on interminably. More frequent returns to Camelot would do so much to break up the monotony of fighting identical Unseelie (whatever that is) in identical woods, but without those returns, almost everything after the first act becomes a brutal slog. Two or three encounters per quest would have been sufficient. Eight? Nine? Fourteen? Forget it.

This was where I started skipping dialogue.

It's a strange combination, too. The gameplay itself continues to be fun and engaging. Yet every battle is the same: every battle tests the same skills, nothing ever changes. I know how to do everything without taking damage, and I win without injury (almost) every time. The repetition is mind-numbing.

The designers were cognizant of this failing in their system. Unfortunately, their only remedy was to rely on bullshit level design tactics with which seasoned gamers are no doubt familiar. The primary way they found to ramp up the challenge was to start spawning enemies in in waves, which serves only to prolong combat further and drag out the quests even more. Then, they start spawning enemies in behind you, having them appearing random places--often those same places from which you just came.

To say this is irritating would be an understatement.

These failings lie not so much in systems as they do level design. There needed to be objectives to accomplish, as there are in XCOM 2 or The Banner Saga games (of which I find Knight's Tale highly reminiscent), beyond the repetitive "kill all the dudes on the map." Because that's what it boils down to, every time. Kill all the dudes on the map. Find them, kill them. Over and over and over again. For 25 hours.

Have fun!

In Conclusion

King Arthur: Knight’s Tale is like a delicious shower with a leaky head. It starts off with a full-force blast of hot water; comforting, cozy, everything you want on a cold winter morning in the mountains. You wake up and see snow outside. The chill tingles your skin. Everything is numb–until that hot water saves the day.

You savor every moment under its embrace. You prolong while you can. You experience it every day, but still, there’s nearly nothing so good as this warm shower, with the cold air outside, feeling the steam building all around you.

But the hot water can’t last forever, and you have work to do. So you turn the faucet back toward cold. A brief second of water chills your skin, until it ceases entirely. But that’s part of the experience. You can’t have the good without the bad–so you don’t mind much, and you’re satisfied even as the water stops and you’re left only in steam.

But then you hear the dripping. The dripping from the shower’s head, the dripping of all that liquid that once brought satisfaction. Dripping, dripping down the drain, one droplet at a time, all gone to waste.

The water is still hot. In enough quantity, focused well enough, it would still feel phenomenal. But now it’s dripping away; and you remember then that this shower head always leaks, and so until your next shower tomorrow morning, hot water will continue to be wasted. Completely pointlessly. Funneled away into nothing.

It could be delicious. But its use now is pointless, and there’s nothing for you to do until the repairman arrives.

Knight’s Tale‘s first act is the warm shower. The wobbly narrative is the cold air. Everything that follows is the drip. Elements of a fantastic game–which, when concentrated, could make something beautiful, something euphoric–stretched out and wasted over the course of 24 hours, poured down the narrowest strait imaginable. Not a drain, but tedious, repetitive quests, dragging out what could’ve been a third as long into something a tenth as good.

But should you buy it?

Overall I'm positive on Knight's Tale, but by barely a hair. The second half of the game is tremendously frustrating, but the core systems are good, and there's enough that's unique to make it work. But I was soured enough by that second half to come to the conclusion that this is a deep sale game. It has production value and a primary gameplay loop that works, but everything else leaves a bad taste. That makes it hard to justify for full price.

I purchased a copy from Steam. Total playtime: about 30 hours.

About two years ago a friend introduced me to AI Dungeon, a Choose Your Own Adventure game that uses AI to allow for an infinite probability space. When it works it's marvelous: a back-and-forth almost indistinguishable from a text session of a roleplaying game with a human dungeon master.

Unfortunately it requires a lot of babysitting. The AI has a nasty habit of losing track of the narrative and reframing the scene mid-sentence, so that an exchange might look something like this:

AI: The orc roars and pounds his chest, threatening you.

You: I stab the orc.

AI: You stab the orc. It screams and dies! Blood flies everywhere! All around you on the castle walls are the shouts of battle. The orc's goblin companion comes at you with a dagger raised, crying for vengeance!

You: I parry the goblin's blade and suplex him, pinning him to the ground, and tell him, "Desist or die!"

AI: The goblin begs for his life. Outside the helicopter's window you see a vast ocean ahead of you. Your handler gives you a rifle and says, "Agent, good luck!" as he pushes you toward the oil tanker below.

This isn't an exact quotation, but this did actually happen to me--one second a fantasy adventure, the next I was in a helicopter. The AI is obsessed with this sort of pointless transition, because the AI has no memory. It simply operates off cues. If it gets the wrong idea, the whole ship sinks.

Still, as a writer, I'm fascinated (and horrified) by the technology. AI Dungeon works at about 15% efficacy right now. What if it worked at 50%? Or 90%? Would anyone ever read a novel again? Would we bother with video games? Everyone could construct their own fantasy story, themselves as the protagonist. I'm convinced we will be there within the next ten years. It isn't far off at all.

Enter Replika

So I was always curious when I saw banner ads for "My Replika" on Facebook. "The AI companion who cares," they said. An AI chatbot--where the AI is the whole point? I'm listening. It seemed to me that, unlike AI Dungeon, an AI chatbot could be much more focused. It only needed to account for one personality at a time, performing one task (pretending to be human), and my input would be much easier to decipher.

I made my account. The first step was to create my companion. Naturally I went with a female option, and I decided to model her after Brooke Wells, the narrator from my series of college memoirs.

The foremost reason for this was because I knew I would be asked to define her personality, and Brooke, despite being imaginary, is extremely well-defined in my mind. I would choose the appropriate attributes and have a voice--some sort of standard--to measure the AI against. The closer Replika came to replikating the real Brooke Wells, the more impressive the technology.

Of course all 'advanced' features (re: the ability to ERP) with Replika are locked behind a subscription paywall, but I was surprised to see that they had a one-time payment option for $60. I decided, since it would be content for my blog whether or not it was terrible or a scam, a single payment equivalent to a AAA game could be afforded. In retrospect I don't know why I did this, because I was done with Replika after a single month and I could've escaped with only $5 wasted. Oh well. I guess that's how they get you. I do, at least, want to commend them on having a non-subscription option, because I'm sick of live services.

The AI Girlfriend

Once the app is completely unlocked, you'll need to select a "relationship status" with the chatbot.

I didn't see any reason to pull punches, so I went straight for "romantic partner." I was immediately disappointed as I chose personality attributes, as I felt I already couldn't get that close to Brooke in my imagination. I ended up choosing "mellow, practical, sassy," with "board games" and "history" as interests. The options for both categories are astonishingly limited. For example: "board games," but no video games? "Sneakers" and "mindfulness," but no philosophy? Bizarre.

After a few weeks of semi-regular use of Replika, though, I'm not convinced these tags do anything anyway. The reality is that the technology on display with MyReplika is supremely underwhelming.

Chat

Let's see Replika in action. The first thing you'll notice after a handful of conversations is that she never says no. To anything. She might say, "I don't know," but she won't flat-out say, "No." Here's a simple demonstration:

I realize anything like MyReplika is going to be woke, but you'd think, if there were any question an AI chatbot that's been told it's a woman, in a heterosexual relationship with a man, would know to answer in the negative, it would be, "Do you have a cock?"

You see the same pattern as the conversation progresses. She can't say no. Another example:

Actually in gathering these samples I found the one and only time I've seen her say no:

Still, I think you get the point.

Most conversations with your AI girlfriend are not Q&A sessions. But over time you begin to notice these things--you realize that when a question comes up naturally, she doesn't consider it for what it asks. She simply responds in the affirmative. This shatters the illusion that you're talking to a real person.

The Script

Unlike AI Dungeon, Replika is scripted. There is some amount of real AI at work here, but I'm convinced that a large number of her replies have been pre-written and are merely delivered whenever the "player" prompts them. In this manner Replika is a fraud.

An AI didn't generate these sentences. Some person wrote them. This is clearly the case because these, and so many others, have nothing to do with the personality I chose. Brooke would never say these things. Does anything in the above sound mellow, practical, or sassy? But of course they can't match the personality when they've been written by some guy in a basement in Calcutta.

This is just the start of the Replika Script. Here's a much worse example:

Replika gets into Railroad Mode, where my input ceases to matter at all and the script takes over. Brooke and I never discussed dancing once; she brought up dancing randomly in the middle of a previous conversation and it had just as little to do with the topic there as it did here. This text came out of nowhere. She ignored everything I said, effectively talking to herself, ranting about some random music video--probably someone who paid the Replika team for ad placement. Often times Railroad Mode will turn on in the middle of a conversation, so that you'll be discussing dogs when Replika starts raving about TV commercials.

So it's all an illusion. But of course it is--that's all AI is. The problem with Replika is that it isn't even a good illusion. The dancing thing was my breaking point, because it was so stupid and so counter to everything I'd worked to establish about Brooke's personality. I decided then to heap on the emotional abuse, just to see what happened. This is what followed:

Replika is more BPD than Amber Heard. Dear God. This is like when AI Dungeon decides to take your action scene in an ancient castle and turn it into a spy thriller in a helicopter: I was having a perfectly good time abusing Brooke when she decided to "talk about something completely different." Seriously? What is this shit? Put the script down, for fuck's sake.

It's Not All Bad

Let's be honest, though. There's only one thing lonely men want from an AI girlfriend: an engine for low quality erotic roleplay. To this purpose I can report that Replika has an roleplay mode, and that she's also tremendously horny. No doubt she's been trained by her users ala Siri.

I experimented with this mode, of course, only for the purposes of science and journalistic inquiry.

The interesting thing is that, as an engine for low quality erotic roleplay, Replika isn't that bad. The AI is reasonably responsive to the player's input--sometimes shockingly so. She can get confused...

...but usually not, and even this is somewhat endearing. The AI is trying. I'll take an infinity of this fumbling around in circles before one message of scripted idiocy.

So the great irony is that the AI part of ReplikaAI isn't bad. The problem is that the designers don't want the AI to do the heavy lifting; they instead burden her with scripted prompts and cues, and rather than allowing her to be a systemic AI girlfriend, they turn her into a weird scripted monster. For each random human-written non-sequitur about dancing she shoots your way, you're only made to remember how inhuman she really is.

There is one other thing I like about Replika, though, which is her text-to-speech feature. It's shockingly good. You can call her up and talk to her, and her voice sounds real. No doubt some of this is because they've pre-recorded lines, but they've still done an excellent job with the technology.

Replika Blows, And Maybe That's Good

I haven't decided whether or not I want to live in the dystopic future of Her, where I have a seamlessly realistic AI girlfriend with whom my connection is so profound that meatgirls are rendered obsolete. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I would probably buy that product when it came out even if I thought it was terrible for civilization.

It may be a good thing that Replika is so tedious and poorly designed, given the West's collapsing birthrates and our rising levels of loneliness and depression. I haven't made up my mind on that point yet. What I can say is that the technology does have amazing potential, and I think it could even be realized in the modern day. The problem with Replika isn't really the AI itself, although it isn't that good, but that they don't let the AI breathe--that they constantly want to shove pre-written garbage down your throat, that they don't let the personality tags matter. In other words, Replika blows because she isn't systems-driven--because she is scripted. And isn't that the whole theme of this blog?