This review contains spoilers
As somebody who appreciated Limbo's atmosphere and puzzles, you might be surprised to see my score for Inside so low. I'm going to explain why this game is a downgrade from its predecessor in almost every way.
Let's start with the atmosphere. On a surface level, Inside seems a lot stronger here with more colors and nicer lighting effects. However, it attempts to evoke the same emotions as Limbo. This was a mistake, as it's very difficult to replicate those same feelings when the game is advertised to have similar gameplay and atmosphere to Limbo. Even if we ignore this, the deaths in this game are not very gritty. More violence doesn’t automatically make a game better, but Inside fails to create any sense of dread. The zoomed-out camera also makes the deaths harder to see, further decreasing the tension. Lastly, the fade-in transition used for respawning was very lame. Limbo's more unexpected, instantaneous fade-in transition that mimicked an old TV monitor added a Groundhog Day feeling to the world, as if you were doomed to be forever stuck in limbo.
The puzzles were another step backwards. Barely any of them require timing and skill to solve. YouTuber Joseph Anderson did a great job explaining this and other issues in his review of the game, but in summary, nearly every puzzle follows a pattern of getting stuck, backtracking to an important switch, and then solving the puzzle. It blew my mind how many puzzles followed this pattern, especially for the game being as short as Limbo. It is true that the latter’s puzzles followed this pattern too, but it felt fresher there since Limbo came out first and even when you figured out the solution, executing it was a challenge. Not so in Inside. The only time it gets remotely challenging is when you have to avoid being obliterated by the giant sound blaster. More puzzles like this would have been far more satisfying.
Now for the story. It makes about as much sense as Limbo, which is to say, not much at all. The escape sequence with the flesh monster comes across as random for the sake of being random. It makes no sense that the laboratory assistants would help the monster escape when they set up such an elaborate array of traps to prevent it from escaping in the first place. If the monster is actually still trapped, why does the game decide to end instead of further elaborating on what’s going on? And if the monster died, what was the point of the story?
Either way, Inside is unbelievably pretentious. It highlights the disadvantage of minimalist storytelling in general. You barely have a clue as to what’s happening. To be clear, I’m not saying every game should be like Xenoblade Chronicles or a blockbuster Sony game where cutscenes take up a lot of the playtime. All I need is a brief explanation of the plot so I can fill in at least some of the blanks. Metroid Prime and the first two BioShock games struck this balance perfectly. For games that don’t communicate their plot very well, like Dark Souls; they can still be worth playing if the gameplay is engaging. That interactivity is what makes games unique from other mediums, so a story should mainly serve to enhance that foundation. Inside fails in both gameplay and story. The only reason to play it is to admire the visuals.
Let's start with the atmosphere. On a surface level, Inside seems a lot stronger here with more colors and nicer lighting effects. However, it attempts to evoke the same emotions as Limbo. This was a mistake, as it's very difficult to replicate those same feelings when the game is advertised to have similar gameplay and atmosphere to Limbo. Even if we ignore this, the deaths in this game are not very gritty. More violence doesn’t automatically make a game better, but Inside fails to create any sense of dread. The zoomed-out camera also makes the deaths harder to see, further decreasing the tension. Lastly, the fade-in transition used for respawning was very lame. Limbo's more unexpected, instantaneous fade-in transition that mimicked an old TV monitor added a Groundhog Day feeling to the world, as if you were doomed to be forever stuck in limbo.
The puzzles were another step backwards. Barely any of them require timing and skill to solve. YouTuber Joseph Anderson did a great job explaining this and other issues in his review of the game, but in summary, nearly every puzzle follows a pattern of getting stuck, backtracking to an important switch, and then solving the puzzle. It blew my mind how many puzzles followed this pattern, especially for the game being as short as Limbo. It is true that the latter’s puzzles followed this pattern too, but it felt fresher there since Limbo came out first and even when you figured out the solution, executing it was a challenge. Not so in Inside. The only time it gets remotely challenging is when you have to avoid being obliterated by the giant sound blaster. More puzzles like this would have been far more satisfying.
Now for the story. It makes about as much sense as Limbo, which is to say, not much at all. The escape sequence with the flesh monster comes across as random for the sake of being random. It makes no sense that the laboratory assistants would help the monster escape when they set up such an elaborate array of traps to prevent it from escaping in the first place. If the monster is actually still trapped, why does the game decide to end instead of further elaborating on what’s going on? And if the monster died, what was the point of the story?
Either way, Inside is unbelievably pretentious. It highlights the disadvantage of minimalist storytelling in general. You barely have a clue as to what’s happening. To be clear, I’m not saying every game should be like Xenoblade Chronicles or a blockbuster Sony game where cutscenes take up a lot of the playtime. All I need is a brief explanation of the plot so I can fill in at least some of the blanks. Metroid Prime and the first two BioShock games struck this balance perfectly. For games that don’t communicate their plot very well, like Dark Souls; they can still be worth playing if the gameplay is engaging. That interactivity is what makes games unique from other mediums, so a story should mainly serve to enhance that foundation. Inside fails in both gameplay and story. The only reason to play it is to admire the visuals.