I am incredibly disappointed in my personal decision, back in 2020, to feed into the outrage of the leaks and ignore the game at launch, despite my initial excitement. While far from perfect and fails to match the cohesion of the first title, the mostly successful narrative risks Part II decides to take can only be understood through a proper playthrough.

I find myself grappling with the narrative and structure more than anything given how fine-tuned and excellent the gameplay experience itself is. There seems to be a collective tired attitude towards the onslaught of cinematic Sony titles (rightfully so), but Naughty Dog is undeniably the peak of this direction. A realistic level of fluidity and weight to the combat and high attention to detail pairs well with the unavoidable insertion of cutscenes. Similar to the first, there's a toll to your actions as a player that would not have the same effect in any other medium, even if the delivery is awkward at moments (quick-time events, for example).

To summarize the problem, the narrative's delivery is largely disrupted by the structure, mainly boiling down to Ellie's section in Seattle. The game's opening is shocking yet effective, but the following 10+ hours feel poorly utilized. I appreciate the growing severity in her kills that leads the player to question the necessity behind enacting revenge, but your days in Seattle are mostly uneventful and incredibly repetitive. Ellie is forced to follow along the clues Tommy have left behind, with very little else happening in between. The flashback sequences, which are incredibly meaningful and effective in piecing together the moments between the two games, feel like a direct acknowledgment of the slowness, as very little plot progression is made to entertain the player in between. The enjoyable gameplay sequences keep the player stringing along, but even this aspect had its lower moments; Mainly, the open area segment when Ellie first arrives in Seattle, carrying over one of the weakest and blandest aspects from Uncharted 4.

Abby's route mostly resolves these issues, but suffers from the absence of an "end-goal" that consistently drives the plot. It makes the events feel relatively insignificant when compared to the ongoing Wolves vs Scars conflict and the tension in Ellie's hunt, but that insignificance is critical to humanizing her character. The moments are not equally engaging, but convincing, which is a worthwhile trade-off for the goals of the game.

Poor structure and consequently characterization stand out far more given how exceptionally executed these factors are in Part I, where the clear end-goal allowed for time spent to develop the relationship of Joel and Ellie and their interactions with the sparse yet memorable side cast, while narrative progress was still being made. The majority of Part II's side cast feel like plot devices to fuel the grief and fury of Ellie and Abby; That isn't to say their interactions are not believable nor engaging, but they never create a level of emotional attachment established with the cast of the first game.

Fortunately, these flaws are the sacrifice for an exceptional thematic continuation of Ellie's journey. I cannot understate the importance that physically playing through the game has on your perspective towards Ellie and Abby's actions. It goes beyond understanding their fuel for revenge, but the misery of watching their lives spiral into chaos as they act on these feelings. The switch in protagonist is not a shallow explanation that there are two sides to every story, but a greater comment on how the first-person gameplay experience forces us to attach ourselves and root for a side, where our actions and emotional attachments are irrational.

Not only are these feelings irrational, but most importantly, inconsistent. If time reverts and events change, where Joel now forces himself into the emergency room, and Abby is now at the side of the doctor, would he make the same decisions? Abby's physical presence does not change the fact that killing the doctor will leave the child fatherless and spark a thirst for revenge, but the ability for Joel to know beforehand may have led to a completely different ending where Part II cannot exist. This is the main aspect of the narrative I feel is misconstrued, that Ellie's vicious killing of Scars and Wolves is contradictory to the stance she takes in the end, as if that itself is a flaw when in actuality it's the point. If not for Ellie, Abby's interactions with Lev and Yara is Naughty Dog being as blatant as possible. I find boiling the game down to the shallow conclusion "Revenge is bad" does a disservice to the numerous moments throughout the game where Ellie and Abby's humanity are challenged, and that their development as characters is not so linear in their realization that their actions have consequences. The final few scenes could not be a more horrifying yet beautifully portrayed depiction of inconsistency.

Even after the sweeps of controversy that consumed the launch of Part II back in 2020, I find myself satisfied with Naughty Dog's consistent level of quality and effort to take risks in an era of Sony that feels stale and safe. I love the Infected world of Last of Us but am looking forward to how ND's talent can be handled in a new series going forward.

An ingenious mashup of unique, tactical gameplay, with Nintendo's unique creative shine, packaged in the charming aesthetics of the early 2000s gaming era. The core concept of managing dozens of Pikmin across wildlife areas and effectively managing your limited time is so impressively fine-tuned for being the first in the series.

I played the third game a few years ago, which made me feel the loss of specific mechanics that added depth to the experience, especially the lack of multiple captains and more Pikmin types. The first rides a line of being too janky or unvaried, but the short length keep things in balance. This stands especially true with the ease in difficulty that 3's enhancements bring, where the first's deadline of 30 days add a constant threat of failure without feeling stressful (Even if I wish the game's deadline was shorter, as multiple critical slip-ups, especially in the Final Trial, resulted in little punishment).

The smaller scope allows for 1 to stand on it's own as a valuable and unique journey. I've never been one for replaying games, but I feel incredibly compelled to return to this eventually, knowing how many ridiculous mistakes could be easily avoided and bump up my performance drastically. Simply a joyful, uniquely Nintendo experience.

[Completed in 28/30 days. Surviving Pikmin: 62. Total Pikmin lost: 1228. Total Pikmin sprouted: 1303]

Frequently, I grow anxious when thrown into open areas in games with little to no direction. Even in massive titles, that hold a plethora of side activity to conquer, I find comfort in the assurance that the main path is in sight when I'm ready to go down it. A Short Hike is fully committed to a lack of hand-hold behavior, with no map and few directional boards scattered around, yet there exists no anxiety in the gameplay experience.

A Short Hike's success, I believe, is only achievable through its short playtime. The forest/island area, at first, lacks visual distinction. Quick paths along the shore, small land masses planted in the middle of the swimmable sea, a campsite building amongst tall trees. From the game's opening, there is no incorrect pathway, with only the task of reaching the hike's peak in front of you.

What begins as foreign territory quickly grows familiar in just under a few hours. Generic landmarks, like a cemetery or lighthouse, fill the relatively small map size. While overwhelming at first, the game does not punish aimless exploration. Getting from Point A to Point B on two separate sides of the map only takes a few minutes, or even less as you upgrade your flight abilities and learn optimal pathways.

The map is small in size, yet dense in activity. Just the simple action of learning to get to a specific piece of higher ground with weaker flight options is reward in of itself, largely in thanks to the tight ground movement and satisfying gliding mechanic. More importantly though, a variety of animal hikers populate the trail, offering rewards to your collectibles and traveling. Cute in design, their placement on the map adds to your sense of surroundings, their wacky conversations filling the small gaps of stillness in your hike.

The rewards that hikers offer you can be valuable at times, upgrading your flying and climbing abilities. Many times though, your reward is relatively useless, like a medal or hat cosmetic. While these may make certain side quests less useful over others, I just do not care. An excuse to spend more time in the beautifully vibrant art design, listen to the quaint yet pleasant soundtrack, and attempting to test just how fast I can glide from high points, is well worth it.

I see many label A Short Hike as this apex of the recent "Cozy Indie Game Movement" created in the last few years. The gameplay experience is warm and relaxing, but I feel the negative connotation unfairly matches the title. A Short Hike is so much more than its aesthetic, and I'm pleased to have finally gotten to one of the best indie experiences I've ever played.