TheWhat13
It's pretty much harmless. It's not bad, but it's not great either. The main missions aren't the best, the open world is fairly enjoyable. The optional content in general is pretty great, thanks in no small part to a great roster of characters. But if you stick to the main game, this is pretty dissapointing. The Lego humor has really taken a dip ever since they stopped using the grunts. Also, they try and make this game more similar to AAA games, with shootout sections notably, which I find... weird ? They just feel out of place, they're a change of pace, sure, but I'm not sure they're a nice change of pace, given that they're really simplistic. This game is just fine, the side content giving it an ever so slight push justifying its third star rather than it being a bang-average 2.5.
Why does this game like to reference Mario Bros so much ?
Assassin's Creed Brotherhood may as well be the first AC game, as it is the first to fully deliver on the formula introduced two games prior. Ubisoft finally realised that you didn't have to make a game with 70 synchronization points for it to feel substantial, much to the contrary. There is a reduced sense of scale in this opus, which is very welcome as Ubisoft's ambition in the first two games came to the detriment of the quality of the game. Simply put, Brotherhood gives the player what the first two games failed to: a solid gameplay foundation which can be exploited in a bigger scale sequel.
The biggest and most welcome change is the tweaked combat system, which feels closer than the one in the original assassin's creed than the one in Ezio's first game, which was a bold but good choice. You can now oneshot every enemy in the game thanks to the kill streak mechanic, where after executing one enemy you can just execute another by simply aiming for him and pressing square. Dies this make the game overly simple ? Yes. Is that a bad thing ? That's up for you to decide, but I personnaly enjoyed it as it speeds up the combat, allows you to be way more agressive than in the prior games where you were just waiting for someone to attack you and pary them, and generally contributes to the cool factor of the game (and you should never forget understimate how important the cool factor is to the AC franchise) as you'll be chopping down multiple enemies in the span of a few seconds.
As for activites, they are even better here than what they were in AC II, which is a high praise as that game had a lot of very good side quests. The romulus lairs vary from ok to amazing, the templar agents mission are more interesting than the assassination contracts as they at least give you a bit of context, and the Leonardo machines are pretty rad as they offer a nice change of pace gameplay-wise (even though said machines don't always control well). It's a shame that the main quests are a bit too trailing-mission heavy, but I think their overall quality is higher than previous games. The brotherhood system is a treat, calling assassin's in is amazingly cool and seeing them level up was surprisingly enjoyable. The number of sync points going down to 24 is a god send, and the borgia towers add a bit of fun to said sync points and aren't all that annoying to do (and thank goodness there's only like 10 or 12 of them)
I find it odd, but I didn't necessarily enjoy the setting all that much. Even though Ubisoft made the good choice of reducing the size of the map and only giving you one city to explore, it doesn't feel as polished as Florence was in the first game, despite the latter having to be developped simultaneously to four other towns. Movement wasn't as enjoyable in this game, despire better climbing speed, as I found myself often running out of rooftops. Over half the map is contryside with no rooftops to parkour on (which is a shame in itslef, even though the scenery can be quite enjoyable), where you are pretty much forced to take a horse, but the horses are ridiculously slow. Getting around was not that much fun sadly, and I thank God for Ubisoft introducing a more widely available fast travel system. Renovating Rome was pretty cool though, but I think I prefered the Villa, as your progress there was more visible. Renovating Rome doesn't really change anything, it just makes more shops available. Also, I find it weird that renovating monuments (which cost between 20 000 and 35 000 florins compared to the usual 1 000 florins for a shop) barely gets you any money. Monuments are a cash waste, and renovating them doesn't even rebulid them or anything : it does nothing. The idea of owning the Coloseum or the Pantheon is so cool on paper, it's a shame that they didn't offer more with it, like maybe offering special events inside the monuments (like a combat challenge in the coloseum for example).
The story of the game is basic but it works. The whole "take back Rome" gimmick is done very well here, as every gameplay system and storyline feels focused on that, so when you eventually drive out the Borgia, it feels satisfying. I do find it a bit of a shame that Rodrigo Borgia is completely thrown aside for Cesare, who is a good villain, but Rodrigo was the f'in devil in the first game and I feel like he deserved a better send off. The game also leaves the whole Templar vs Assassin thing aside in favour of it being Borgia VS Assasin, which I'm not mad at. By that I mean that Cesare more so wants Italy for himself rather than the templar organization, and given the character, that's not too surprising that he would use the templar funds and power for his own personal gain. As for the supporting cast, I really enjoyed them. AC II already had a great cast, but Brotherhood really develops on those who haven't had that much time to shine in II, which is a welcome choice. La Volpe, Machiavelli and Claudia Auditore are prominent here, and all get their own little arcs. I also really enjoyed the game's protrayal of all that Ezio has given up for his Assassin life, through the Cristina missions and through the dialogue with his sister especially. It adds depth to a character who didn't need it in a standalone game, where his charisma was sufficient, but if they were going to make a trilogy out of him, he definitely needed it.
On performance, the game did have a lot of glitches : guards who saw me even though I was out of their line of sight, clunky platforming, full synchronization that wasn't granted to me even though I clearly fulfilled the objective... It's a shame, but it wasn't game breaking or anything.
Brotherhood feels like the game AC II could've been, and shows a positive step for Ubisoft. I'm surprised by their choice to go for a restricted scale, which really helped the game. With the first two games (and with most of their modern games from what I hear) Ubisoft wanted too much too quick, packing a lot of content in but not backing it up with a strong enough basis. With Brotherhood, Ubisoft made the choice to take their time and make sure that the game would be fun, even if shorter and less impressive than its predecessors. The sheer scale of AC II is really impressive for a game that came out in 2009, but I much prefer the reduced scale of Brotherhood which made the bold choice to pull the brakes and make sure that they got the gameplay right. It's a shame that, 13 years later, we are now stuck with a Ubisoft that has gone back on their choice and are now in an arms race to build the biggest and the most impressive worlds, forgetting that they are making video games and not VR reconstitutions of worlds (which they excell at). Please Ubisoft, have a Brotherhood moment where you rebuild a strong gameplay-base first and only after build a big world.
Assassin's Creed Brotherhood may as well be the first AC game, as it is the first to fully deliver on the formula introduced two games prior. Ubisoft finally realised that you didn't have to make a game with 70 synchronization points for it to feel substantial, much to the contrary. There is a reduced sense of scale in this opus, which is very welcome as Ubisoft's ambition in the first two games came to the detriment of the quality of the game. Simply put, Brotherhood gives the player what the first two games failed to: a solid gameplay foundation which can be exploited in a bigger scale sequel.
The biggest and most welcome change is the tweaked combat system, which feels closer than the one in the original assassin's creed than the one in Ezio's first game, which was a bold but good choice. You can now oneshot every enemy in the game thanks to the kill streak mechanic, where after executing one enemy you can just execute another by simply aiming for him and pressing square. Dies this make the game overly simple ? Yes. Is that a bad thing ? That's up for you to decide, but I personnaly enjoyed it as it speeds up the combat, allows you to be way more agressive than in the prior games where you were just waiting for someone to attack you and pary them, and generally contributes to the cool factor of the game (and you should never forget understimate how important the cool factor is to the AC franchise) as you'll be chopping down multiple enemies in the span of a few seconds.
As for activites, they are even better here than what they were in AC II, which is a high praise as that game had a lot of very good side quests. The romulus lairs vary from ok to amazing, the templar agents mission are more interesting than the assassination contracts as they at least give you a bit of context, and the Leonardo machines are pretty rad as they offer a nice change of pace gameplay-wise (even though said machines don't always control well). It's a shame that the main quests are a bit too trailing-mission heavy, but I think their overall quality is higher than previous games. The brotherhood system is a treat, calling assassin's in is amazingly cool and seeing them level up was surprisingly enjoyable. The number of sync points going down to 24 is a god send, and the borgia towers add a bit of fun to said sync points and aren't all that annoying to do (and thank goodness there's only like 10 or 12 of them)
I find it odd, but I didn't necessarily enjoy the setting all that much. Even though Ubisoft made the good choice of reducing the size of the map and only giving you one city to explore, it doesn't feel as polished as Florence was in the first game, despite the latter having to be developped simultaneously to four other towns. Movement wasn't as enjoyable in this game, despire better climbing speed, as I found myself often running out of rooftops. Over half the map is contryside with no rooftops to parkour on (which is a shame in itslef, even though the scenery can be quite enjoyable), where you are pretty much forced to take a horse, but the horses are ridiculously slow. Getting around was not that much fun sadly, and I thank God for Ubisoft introducing a more widely available fast travel system. Renovating Rome was pretty cool though, but I think I prefered the Villa, as your progress there was more visible. Renovating Rome doesn't really change anything, it just makes more shops available. Also, I find it weird that renovating monuments (which cost between 20 000 and 35 000 florins compared to the usual 1 000 florins for a shop) barely gets you any money. Monuments are a cash waste, and renovating them doesn't even rebulid them or anything : it does nothing. The idea of owning the Coloseum or the Pantheon is so cool on paper, it's a shame that they didn't offer more with it, like maybe offering special events inside the monuments (like a combat challenge in the coloseum for example).
The story of the game is basic but it works. The whole "take back Rome" gimmick is done very well here, as every gameplay system and storyline feels focused on that, so when you eventually drive out the Borgia, it feels satisfying. I do find it a bit of a shame that Rodrigo Borgia is completely thrown aside for Cesare, who is a good villain, but Rodrigo was the f'in devil in the first game and I feel like he deserved a better send off. The game also leaves the whole Templar vs Assassin thing aside in favour of it being Borgia VS Assasin, which I'm not mad at. By that I mean that Cesare more so wants Italy for himself rather than the templar organization, and given the character, that's not too surprising that he would use the templar funds and power for his own personal gain. As for the supporting cast, I really enjoyed them. AC II already had a great cast, but Brotherhood really develops on those who haven't had that much time to shine in II, which is a welcome choice. La Volpe, Machiavelli and Claudia Auditore are prominent here, and all get their own little arcs. I also really enjoyed the game's protrayal of all that Ezio has given up for his Assassin life, through the Cristina missions and through the dialogue with his sister especially. It adds depth to a character who didn't need it in a standalone game, where his charisma was sufficient, but if they were going to make a trilogy out of him, he definitely needed it.
On performance, the game did have a lot of glitches : guards who saw me even though I was out of their line of sight, clunky platforming, full synchronization that wasn't granted to me even though I clearly fulfilled the objective... It's a shame, but it wasn't game breaking or anything.
Brotherhood feels like the game AC II could've been, and shows a positive step for Ubisoft. I'm surprised by their choice to go for a restricted scale, which really helped the game. With the first two games (and with most of their modern games from what I hear) Ubisoft wanted too much too quick, packing a lot of content in but not backing it up with a strong enough basis. With Brotherhood, Ubisoft made the choice to take their time and make sure that the game would be fun, even if shorter and less impressive than its predecessors. The sheer scale of AC II is really impressive for a game that came out in 2009, but I much prefer the reduced scale of Brotherhood which made the bold choice to pull the brakes and make sure that they got the gameplay right. It's a shame that, 13 years later, we are now stuck with a Ubisoft that has gone back on their choice and are now in an arms race to build the biggest and the most impressive worlds, forgetting that they are making video games and not VR reconstitutions of worlds (which they excell at). Please Ubisoft, have a Brotherhood moment where you rebuild a strong gameplay-base first and only after build a big world.
2018
This review contains spoilers
I'm not 100% done with the game, but I've done most of it, beating every valkyrie and completing teh story, as well as visting the two optional realms, so I think I'm ready to write a review of this fantastic game.
I'll say this, there is only one big flaw to the game: the story. this main seem surprising, especially given I could've talked about the huge parralels between this and Naughty Dog games or the overreliance on "press circle" prompts to climb, go trhough hidden loading times etc, which are very minor gripes I have with the game. The one thing that stops this from being a 5 star is the story, because it is so frustrating. The characters are great, the character's stories are great. But, the main plot is just filled with Mcguffins. "Go here to grab this" "Oh that doesn't work, go there then" "Oh i forgot about this". The plot could've ended like three different times before it actually did, just because something very random happens. The worst offender of this is when you reach the top of the mountain, where you meet Mimir, who tells you this isn't the highest peak in all of the realms, and guides you to Jotunheim. Had he not been there, the plot would've just ended. Basically, it feels like you reach the great character moments almost by accident, and that's a shame, because those storylines are great. I'll put it like this, the game's story is like a tree with golden branches, but a rotten trunk. Hope ragnarök has a better main plot to unify the great character arcs.
Okay now the good stuff. The combat is neat. Really neat. The valkyrie fights are great. I died a number of times, but only one of them felt unjustified, and that was because my character glitched and couldn't move for some reason. I like that Kratos is super slow, it forces you to block, and basically play like Kratos would actually fight.
The side content is neat. The dwarf favours act as lessons to Atreus, which is neat, and they're mostly just an excuse for more, tougher fights. The valkyries are the best thing about the game.
Lastly, I want to go over the characters, which really are great. This game gets a lot of comparisons to The Last of Us, and it's understandable, but I'll just say that the side characters in this game are better than the one in The Last of Us. Baldur, Freya, Brok and Sindri are all great characters with their own arcs, and they feel like more than just plot devices, which is my main complaint with the secondary characters in The Last of Us, who feel like they don't exist outside the game. Mimir is the best, firstly because he has an Irish accent, secondly because he's a man stuck in a tree trunk, thirdly because he's a dead head hanging to your waist, lastly because he has the best and funniest lines in the game. The main characters aren't as good, which doesn't mean Kratos and Atreus are bad, just that Ellie and Joel are so good that they cannot be touched.
This is the best game to not get a 5/5 that I've played. this is a 4.95/5 game, but I don't round up grades when it comes to 5/5, either the game is a 5 or it's not. Sadly, the overreliance on Mcguffins really hurt the game in my eyes. This is still a must-have, and is definitely worth buying a PS4 just so you can play this.
I'll say this, there is only one big flaw to the game: the story. this main seem surprising, especially given I could've talked about the huge parralels between this and Naughty Dog games or the overreliance on "press circle" prompts to climb, go trhough hidden loading times etc, which are very minor gripes I have with the game. The one thing that stops this from being a 5 star is the story, because it is so frustrating. The characters are great, the character's stories are great. But, the main plot is just filled with Mcguffins. "Go here to grab this" "Oh that doesn't work, go there then" "Oh i forgot about this". The plot could've ended like three different times before it actually did, just because something very random happens. The worst offender of this is when you reach the top of the mountain, where you meet Mimir, who tells you this isn't the highest peak in all of the realms, and guides you to Jotunheim. Had he not been there, the plot would've just ended. Basically, it feels like you reach the great character moments almost by accident, and that's a shame, because those storylines are great. I'll put it like this, the game's story is like a tree with golden branches, but a rotten trunk. Hope ragnarök has a better main plot to unify the great character arcs.
Okay now the good stuff. The combat is neat. Really neat. The valkyrie fights are great. I died a number of times, but only one of them felt unjustified, and that was because my character glitched and couldn't move for some reason. I like that Kratos is super slow, it forces you to block, and basically play like Kratos would actually fight.
The side content is neat. The dwarf favours act as lessons to Atreus, which is neat, and they're mostly just an excuse for more, tougher fights. The valkyries are the best thing about the game.
Lastly, I want to go over the characters, which really are great. This game gets a lot of comparisons to The Last of Us, and it's understandable, but I'll just say that the side characters in this game are better than the one in The Last of Us. Baldur, Freya, Brok and Sindri are all great characters with their own arcs, and they feel like more than just plot devices, which is my main complaint with the secondary characters in The Last of Us, who feel like they don't exist outside the game. Mimir is the best, firstly because he has an Irish accent, secondly because he's a man stuck in a tree trunk, thirdly because he's a dead head hanging to your waist, lastly because he has the best and funniest lines in the game. The main characters aren't as good, which doesn't mean Kratos and Atreus are bad, just that Ellie and Joel are so good that they cannot be touched.
This is the best game to not get a 5/5 that I've played. this is a 4.95/5 game, but I don't round up grades when it comes to 5/5, either the game is a 5 or it's not. Sadly, the overreliance on Mcguffins really hurt the game in my eyes. This is still a must-have, and is definitely worth buying a PS4 just so you can play this.
The combat is what makes this game. Yeah, the world is stunning. Yeah, the story is great. Yeah, the characters are lovable. But the combat is the best aspect of this game. Item-management is also a core part of the experience, which I loved. The only problem I have with this game is traversal, which feels quite limited and slow, especially when compared to Breath of the Wild. Other than that, the game is incredible.
2021
It Takes Two is a wonderful game, a really fun platformer, with varied gameplay and a huge runtime (10 hours is more than enough for a 2 player game). The story is touching and the different gameplay variants go from "okay" to "excellent." However, it's huge runtime may be to its detriment, as it felt like past the 75% mark, the game lost some steam and didn't really know how to keep things interesting. Still, this was a great time and I hope Hazelight continue on their way as this was an incredible evolution of the idea behind "A Way Out" and the two player story driven game genre is a very refreshing one.
2016
Video games are a pretty repetitive media. How many times have we complained about samey open worlds, overdone tropes, copy-pasted mechanics ? But sometimes, a game surprises you with its exuberant creativity and soul. Yakuza is one of the latter type of game.
Yakuza is a series that always intrigued me from afar. I would see these insane clips of the protagonist using pretty much anything from the decor as a weapon, a guy with an eyepatch moan before fighting the protagonist in a minigame battle, all while people would keep singing the praises of the game's story and characters. It just seemed like a weird match at first glance, like pear and melted chocolate. But, just like pear and melted chocolate, Yakuza is a mix of insane gameplay and characters with a good, drama-driven story that works wonders.
No aspect of the game encapsulates the craziness of Yakuza as well as Majima. The guy is a complete psycho, capable of inspiring fear just as well as he is capable making you smile and laugh. His schemes to get Kiryu to fight him are hilarious, the japanese voice actor does a great job at bringing the character to life. He switches from terrifying psycho to goofball in a heartbeat and I love him for it. He absolutely is the best part of this game.
As for gameplay, it varies greatly in quality. You can dfeinitely feel this game was born on the PS2, as there is some grindy boss fights in there. The combat gameplay is at its best when you have a handful of goons in front of you that you take out alone, with or without furniture, motorcycles, bikes, katanas, lightsaber rip-offs or any other object you can put your hands on, ripping through them as the one-man army you are. When you get to one-on-one though... the game can get frustrating and unsatisfying. If you didn't know this was a PS2 remake, you'll definitely know once you get to the boss fights. These are impossible to do without item consumption. Bosses will ignore your attacks, dodge pretty much everything in heat mode, which isn't helped by the lock-on system that can be dreadful at times (especially when you only have two enemies left, it kinda pannicks at that point). My tip is to just stack healing items and power through, because it feels like that's what the game wants you to do. Rush mode is also your best option for boss fights, switching to other styles to use heat attacks.
The boss combat is definitely the worst aspect of the game, but the combat, overall, is great. Heat attacks are absolutely amazing, and even though I would've liked more variations in the animations of each individual type of heat attack (if i see Kiryu pick up a knocked down guy's head to punch it one more time, I'm gonna explode), there are a lot (especially for a game that originates from the PS2) of different context sensitive heat actions by the end-game. The 4 styles are pretty cool, each with their own best context to use. My favourite is probably rush, as you can do some real serious movie-style one on one fights filled with dodges and counter attacks. I didn't really try out dragon-style, as it takes time to become viable and by the time it did, I was already too familiar with the three other styles to switch.
The side content is really well done. The "entertainment" activities are really cool, wether they be bowling, darts or, especially, POCKET CIRCUIT, THE ABSOLUTE LOVE OF MY LIFE. Seriously, it's so cool and addictive, even though I was terrible at it. I will say it was hard to understand which attributes were really important and which weren't (the game insists acceleration is important for slopes but honestly, you should always prioritise a better top speed, even on sloped circuits), but it's addictive. The side-quest attached to it is really cool as well, which I can say about a few other "substories" as the game calls them. The one where you make a tourist visit town is really cool for example. It is a shame though that a lot of them are just about Kiryu escaping scams by beating up people, it just gets kinda repetitive. Majima Everywhere is an amazing concept, and there are great moments attached to it.
SPOILERS FOR THE STORY AHEAD
As for the story, it tries, maybe a bit too hard. The characters are great, with understandable motivations. Kiryu is an interesting idea, a kind-hearted yakuza who does his job in his own way. Nishikiyama is a great villain, shame he barely shows up by the end of the game. Overall, the pitch of the story is great: Yakuza drama, ten billion yen stolen, a mysterious girl at the center of it all, that's delightfully 2000-y. But, the story gets confused at the halfway point, and gets confusing in the final quarter. Chapter 6 is just pure filler, chapter 7 is better, but then it just devolves into chaos. New characters, whole new entities are presented in the final quarter of the story. The key to the mystery at the heart of this game is a guy you've barely heard of. I think the story would've been better if we stayed focused on the Tojo Clan family war, as that's what the first quarter of the game sets up. By the end, Nishikiyama feels like a complete after-thought, which is a shame because his dedicated cutscenes between each chapter made it so that he was the best-developped character in the game. He is the final boss, sure, but I'd argue he isn't the main antagonist, as that role falls onto Jingu, who you've barely heard of until then. I just think it undermines Nishikiyama's character development from loser to villain, as he just feels like he's been a pawn all along, really undermining his story. Furthermore, his sacrifice is just stupid: why did you blow up the building while the ones you are trying to save are still there ??? I know that you could interpretate his actions as pride, done in spite of Jingu rather than in favour of Yumi and Kiryu, but come on. Oh, and Yumi's death isn't nearly as impactful as what it could've been, because we barely know her. The game's story, by the end of it, just feels like too much.
Yakuza is a series that always intrigued me from afar. I would see these insane clips of the protagonist using pretty much anything from the decor as a weapon, a guy with an eyepatch moan before fighting the protagonist in a minigame battle, all while people would keep singing the praises of the game's story and characters. It just seemed like a weird match at first glance, like pear and melted chocolate. But, just like pear and melted chocolate, Yakuza is a mix of insane gameplay and characters with a good, drama-driven story that works wonders.
No aspect of the game encapsulates the craziness of Yakuza as well as Majima. The guy is a complete psycho, capable of inspiring fear just as well as he is capable making you smile and laugh. His schemes to get Kiryu to fight him are hilarious, the japanese voice actor does a great job at bringing the character to life. He switches from terrifying psycho to goofball in a heartbeat and I love him for it. He absolutely is the best part of this game.
As for gameplay, it varies greatly in quality. You can dfeinitely feel this game was born on the PS2, as there is some grindy boss fights in there. The combat gameplay is at its best when you have a handful of goons in front of you that you take out alone, with or without furniture, motorcycles, bikes, katanas, lightsaber rip-offs or any other object you can put your hands on, ripping through them as the one-man army you are. When you get to one-on-one though... the game can get frustrating and unsatisfying. If you didn't know this was a PS2 remake, you'll definitely know once you get to the boss fights. These are impossible to do without item consumption. Bosses will ignore your attacks, dodge pretty much everything in heat mode, which isn't helped by the lock-on system that can be dreadful at times (especially when you only have two enemies left, it kinda pannicks at that point). My tip is to just stack healing items and power through, because it feels like that's what the game wants you to do. Rush mode is also your best option for boss fights, switching to other styles to use heat attacks.
The boss combat is definitely the worst aspect of the game, but the combat, overall, is great. Heat attacks are absolutely amazing, and even though I would've liked more variations in the animations of each individual type of heat attack (if i see Kiryu pick up a knocked down guy's head to punch it one more time, I'm gonna explode), there are a lot (especially for a game that originates from the PS2) of different context sensitive heat actions by the end-game. The 4 styles are pretty cool, each with their own best context to use. My favourite is probably rush, as you can do some real serious movie-style one on one fights filled with dodges and counter attacks. I didn't really try out dragon-style, as it takes time to become viable and by the time it did, I was already too familiar with the three other styles to switch.
The side content is really well done. The "entertainment" activities are really cool, wether they be bowling, darts or, especially, POCKET CIRCUIT, THE ABSOLUTE LOVE OF MY LIFE. Seriously, it's so cool and addictive, even though I was terrible at it. I will say it was hard to understand which attributes were really important and which weren't (the game insists acceleration is important for slopes but honestly, you should always prioritise a better top speed, even on sloped circuits), but it's addictive. The side-quest attached to it is really cool as well, which I can say about a few other "substories" as the game calls them. The one where you make a tourist visit town is really cool for example. It is a shame though that a lot of them are just about Kiryu escaping scams by beating up people, it just gets kinda repetitive. Majima Everywhere is an amazing concept, and there are great moments attached to it.
SPOILERS FOR THE STORY AHEAD
As for the story, it tries, maybe a bit too hard. The characters are great, with understandable motivations. Kiryu is an interesting idea, a kind-hearted yakuza who does his job in his own way. Nishikiyama is a great villain, shame he barely shows up by the end of the game. Overall, the pitch of the story is great: Yakuza drama, ten billion yen stolen, a mysterious girl at the center of it all, that's delightfully 2000-y. But, the story gets confused at the halfway point, and gets confusing in the final quarter. Chapter 6 is just pure filler, chapter 7 is better, but then it just devolves into chaos. New characters, whole new entities are presented in the final quarter of the story. The key to the mystery at the heart of this game is a guy you've barely heard of. I think the story would've been better if we stayed focused on the Tojo Clan family war, as that's what the first quarter of the game sets up. By the end, Nishikiyama feels like a complete after-thought, which is a shame because his dedicated cutscenes between each chapter made it so that he was the best-developped character in the game. He is the final boss, sure, but I'd argue he isn't the main antagonist, as that role falls onto Jingu, who you've barely heard of until then. I just think it undermines Nishikiyama's character development from loser to villain, as he just feels like he's been a pawn all along, really undermining his story. Furthermore, his sacrifice is just stupid: why did you blow up the building while the ones you are trying to save are still there ??? I know that you could interpretate his actions as pride, done in spite of Jingu rather than in favour of Yumi and Kiryu, but come on. Oh, and Yumi's death isn't nearly as impactful as what it could've been, because we barely know her. The game's story, by the end of it, just feels like too much.
3D World: a game that suffered from the lack of a traditional 3D Mario game on its original console. On Switch, a system that has Super Mario Odyssey, it's way easier to appreciate, because this is good, this is great even. Every level feels so fresh and exciting, you keep telling yourself that the level you just played is the best in the game. there isn't a single level I don't enjoy in this game. It's only problem is also one of its strentghs: bite-sized levels. This philosophy gives the game a sense of speed and energy, sure, but it also makes the levels less memorable sadly.
Bowser's Fury: My first time through it, I didn't get what the fuss was about. Sure, this was good, but it just felt like a watered-down version of SMO to me. Then, I 100% completed it. And wow. I loved it. Is it as good as SMO ? No, but that's because it's a demo more than anything, and there is a lot of potential here. My only real gripes with this is that to load a new catshine in a zone, you have to leave that zone and come back, which kinda defeats the purpose of the open world thing. Also, the levels don't have a lot of personality, they all kinda blend in together for me, but again, this is just a demo so it's normal. Other than that, this game is really fun, and really shows the potential that mario has.
Bowser's Fury: My first time through it, I didn't get what the fuss was about. Sure, this was good, but it just felt like a watered-down version of SMO to me. Then, I 100% completed it. And wow. I loved it. Is it as good as SMO ? No, but that's because it's a demo more than anything, and there is a lot of potential here. My only real gripes with this is that to load a new catshine in a zone, you have to leave that zone and come back, which kinda defeats the purpose of the open world thing. Also, the levels don't have a lot of personality, they all kinda blend in together for me, but again, this is just a demo so it's normal. Other than that, this game is really fun, and really shows the potential that mario has.
This game is a perfect representation of the pre-BOTW Zelda formula, which makes it an amazing game. The combat is fun for a Zelda game, the dungeons are great and full of character. The world is full of that same character. The soundtrack is beautiful. Everything about this game is great, from the main story to the side activities. A must-play.
2021
Human Ressources : the video-game
Played around 8 hours of the game (the first 5 chapters), and the combat is tight. Howevern I shelved because I did not see myself playing this game for 50+ hours, as the art direction is pretty boring, the characters aren't very interesting (except for the mechon who have a ton of personality) and the story, even though the end of chapter 5 gives you an interesting hook, didn't capture me enough to get me going for 40+ more hours. If I could hang on to the game and didn't't mind playing it for 50 + hours, I think it would've gotten a 5/7 (3.5 stars).
2021
This review contains spoilers
I'm going to be crucified for this but Inscryption is way overhyped. The card game is good, until you realise that it's completely unbalanced and really easy to cheese your way through. The 2D section is a chore, introducing new mechanics that it barely explains, although it's cool in concept.The final part is okay, but nothing groundbreaking either.
However, the story is a pretty great love letter to gaming culture. Playing through a creepypasta is such a cool idea I can't believe it hadn't been done before, and it's really well executed here. However, this game lives thanks to it's twists and turns, and once that is gone, I'm pretty sure repeat playthroughs aren't as enjoyable and show the cracks in the gameplay's proverbial armour. This is not a bad game, far from it, it's good, original, interesting amongst many other things, but it's far from being the masterpiece some present it as.
However, the story is a pretty great love letter to gaming culture. Playing through a creepypasta is such a cool idea I can't believe it hadn't been done before, and it's really well executed here. However, this game lives thanks to it's twists and turns, and once that is gone, I'm pretty sure repeat playthroughs aren't as enjoyable and show the cracks in the gameplay's proverbial armour. This is not a bad game, far from it, it's good, original, interesting amongst many other things, but it's far from being the masterpiece some present it as.
What a game. Beautiful visuals, environments, music... The movement is somehow even better than in the original, and the combat is leagues better. Even if the original game didn't grab you, please try this one. It really delivers on the potential the original showed.
The day I realised that Persona 5 was one of the greatest games I’d ever played is the day I realised that I couldn’t write a satisfactory review for it, as talking about one system necessarily implied talking about another. The review got really messy, and I abandoned it in favor of a review of the “Royal” part of Persona 5 Royal, by what I mean I only reviewed the new elements added to the game. Writing a review for The Last of Us Part II was incredibly hard, as, just like many great games, Naughty Dog’s latest (and, in my opinion, greatest) is a marriage of so many different interweaving elements. Just like the first game, which relied on moment-to-moment gameplay to build the connexion between Ellie, Joel and the player, the sequel uses its shockingly realistic gameplay to tackle the interesting themes of love, grief, violence, vengeance, and cycles which are at the center of the game’s plot. Furthermore, the game cashes in on the relationship it took a whole game to build 7 years earlier, by emotionally involving the player into the plot and using Ellie’s character as a projection screen for the player’s own emotions and desires, with whom the player slowly disconnects from while he realises the horror of her ways and starts to hope that she’ll save her last bit of humanity in time. It relies so much on the players’ love for Joel and Ellie, initially using the former to motivate the cycle of vengeance and then using the latter to make every painful step of Ellie’s descent hurt the player, in such a way that, by the end of the game, the player is left emotionally drained. I do believe that, because of this reliance on the relationship between Ellie, Joel and player, the game could only work as a sequel. I also do understand the backlash. Perhaps Naughty Dog underestimated the community’s love for Joel, leading many to not disconnect with Ellie’s motivations in time and completely turn on the game when you take control of Abby, and then getting even more annoyed at the end.
However, I would encourage a second playthrough. Going into the game for the first time, I had heard of the backlash and I knew basically the whole plot. I didn’t care for The Last of Us when Part II came out, so I just wanted to know what the controversy was about. Then I played the original, and was interested in Part II, expecting to hate it because of the noise… and I loved it. Knowing Joel’s death in advance help me take my knee-jerk reaction out of it and really look at the story Naughty Dog was trying to tell, and I loved it so much. I was never trying to avenge Joel, because I had already accepted his death by the time I started playing, I was terrified for Ellie. When that shift in perspective hits, the game just clicks (infected-related pun fully intended). This was my second time with the game, and I was probably more attached to Joel this time around as I have now played the original twice and have even done a video essay about it, so I was more affected by his death this time around. I was starting to believe that I too wouldn’t want to spare Abby by the end, that maybe my first playthrough was one of a contrarian who just wanted to think differently than the Internet noise. But then, again, the game managed to change my mind by showing me the toll that vengeance took on Ellie. In simple words: it didn’t matter if I had forgiven Abby or not, I didn’t want to spare her because of forgiveness (even though I do like Abby’s character): I wanted to spare Abby because that was the only way to save Ellie’s humanity. In this sense, the game reminds me of the following saying:
“Forgive others, not because they deserve forgiveness, but because you deserve peace” - Jonathan Lockwood Huie
I could’ve hated Abby with all my guts, and I still wouldn’t have wanted Ellie to go to Santa Barbara, and I think that is a pretty powerful statement about how love is stronger than hate. Ellie leaves the one she loves behind, because she wants to pursue hate and vengeance, and who could possibly agree with that. I cried when Ellie left Dina, because she was pursuing ridiculous, inconsequential vengeance. It wasn’t going to bring Joel back, it wouldn’t stop the nightmares (as shown by the fact that Abby still has nightmares of her dad’s death even after killing Joel), it wouldn’t bring her any relief, and yet she still abandoned her loved ones. I felt bad for her.
People tend to say that this game is about perspective, and that it tries to deliver the incredibly shallow message that “there are two sides to every story, so don’t be too quick to go on a murder spree :(“ but I couldn’t disagree more. Even though some clues could make you believe this (the numerous, on the nose parallels between Ellie and Abby that include but do not limit themselves to: dead father figures, living in a very organised community, starting our time with them by hearing of an affair the previous night and by being offered the possibility to pet a dog…), I dont’t think Naughty Dog wants you to say that both Ellie and Abby are good people, that they both had their reasons for doing what they did. If you go back to the reveal trailer for the game, Ellie sings “But I can’t walk on the path of the right because I’m wrong,” which is no coincidence. Make no mistake about it: Ellie is a horrible person in this game (though I wouldn’t call her a villain, as the game doesn’t reason in the classic hero/villain dichotomy, preferring to present good and bad acts rather than good and bad people), and she is presented this way to show the toll of vengeance. Even if her original motivations are justice and present a direct link to the love she felt for Joel, the kind soul that is Ellie completely loses herself and becomes a monster, with the underlying objective being to make the player feel like a monster when he takes a step back and realises that, sure, the game forced him to do these things, but at some point, he was fully on board with it and wanted revenge as much as Ellie. I whole-heartedly believe that Neil Druckman’s intention was to present Ellie as a psychopath, and Abby as her victim (even though I wouldn’t say Abby’s a good person, rather that she is repenting by helping Lev and Yara and by sparing Dina and Ellie). The former continuously goes after the latter, even after Abby spares her not once, but twice, saying that Abby “f’ed up” by showing her mercy when interrogated about it by Dina. She puts her pregnant lover in danger, refuses to leave as soon as she learns of the pregnancy, menaces an innocent child to force her foe to fight her… And of course, she kills everyone in her path to get there.
I have to admit that, of all the critiques I have heard of The Last of Us Part II, the one that I have never understood is one that consists of saying that the game is hypocritical, as it forces you to partake in incredibly gruesome (and fun) killing gameplay all while telling you that killing is bad (for example, NakeyJakey’s excellent video about this game, with which I do not agree but have to say it makes interesting points and is very well made like all of his videos, please check him out !). I honestly do not see the hypo-criticism in that. Had we been on the PS2, with graphics and engines unable to show deaths this brutal and realistic, I would’ve understood. But, this game’s combat physics are the most terrifying part of the game (even though the rat king is a close second). Enemies scream out fallen brethren names, said dying brethren make traumatizing dying sounds, you can see the blood spurt out of their throats, using certain weapons ends in limbs getting torn off, guts being exposed, blood being splashed across the room… In a world full of fungi infected people with mushrooms breaking through their skull and covering their body, the most horrifying sight is one of a blood soaked floor with what vaguely ressembles a discombobulated human body in the center of it, with its organs lying around. In a world where you hear inhumane noises and clicks that inspire fear in everyone, the most memorable sound is one of a human’s last breath being used to scream out in horror at the realisation that he is missing a limb and that he’s already dead.
The presentation of the combat makes every encounter tense and gives them terrible weight. The arsenal you use is enough to compose the orchestra of pain that you’ll be dishing out. Explosives, shotguns, smoke bombs, riffles, revolvers, flame-throwers, melee weapons are all equally fun to use and efficient. It also varies between characters, making it hard to tire of each’s arsenal as they really mix up the gameplay style. Abby is clearly more about offense than subtle stealth, having no traps but having pipe-bombs and the ability to chain an insta-kill melee attack to an anterior deadly blow, while Ellie can have a more subtle approach with smoke bombs and explosive mines. Maybe it could’ve been a bit more vast, with one or two more traps, but all that is here is already enough to make you feel like Death itself. All this unhinged, gory violence really has an effect on the player, who will definitely end up feeling like something isn’t right with what they’re doing. The psychological price for using certain weapons is brutal. I only used explosives when necessary or against infected, because seeing its consequences on my victims was always shocking. All this violence sells the themes and plot of the game, and you can see that Ellie herself has doubts about her actions, with Ashley Johnson’s amazing performance really selling that idea masterfully, especially at then end of day 2. Seeing Ellie in this state, combined with the player’s own doubts, will push him to want for this mad quest for revenge to end, to see Ellie’s soul saved, but she refuses to let it go, sinking deeper and deeper into despair as the player continues to commit these atrocities, wishing he didn’t have to.
As for the pacing of fights, this game is closer to Uncharted 4 than one may originally think, as it relies on the same principle of going in and out of stealth, except this time the stealth is way more developed and the gunplay isn’t as viable because of limited ressources. You are going to get seen, the question is not if but when, and you need to try and reveal yourself in a strategical location, where you may lure ennemies into a trap (wether that be an explosive or a room with a single entrance where you can wait for them) or get back into stealth. This makes for a great encounter flow between tense stealth where you’re hoping that there is no enemy suddenly appearing while killing someone, and intense combat, where you’re looking everyone to make sure no one is flanking you and where you’re trying to make every bullet count.
As for the level design of the encounters, it’s generally really good, with large levels offering many ways to tackle them. Ellie’s entrance into the hospital is a great example of this. It also offers the possibility to pit different factions against one another a few times, for example letting some infected loose or trying to lure clickers to ennemies with bricks and bottles shattering (on a side note, it’s really cool to see Tommy use this same strategy against you during his sniping confrontation with Abby) All this contributes to the game feeling open and full of choices for you to make, which also applies to the world outside of encounters.
If the original focused on the corridor-type linear design Naughty Dog excelled at during the seventh generation, Part II quickly throws you into a seemingly non-linear world during Seattle Day 1. You have a map, and a devastated city to explore. I wouldn’t have enjoyed the game being open-world, as I do believe that Naughty Dog is the best studio when it comes to linear level design and that because of this they should never stray too far away from it, but in this small, contained environment, it rules. It’s actually a masterpiece in hidden linearity, with one discovery in one local leading you to another local in which you make another discovery which leads you to another local and so on and so forth. It’s way more linear than first meets the eye, making it hard to miss the actual cool stuff there is to do in the area and directly pointing you at it, making sure you get straight to it. The whole game is more open than previous games from Naughty Dog, being filled with this false sense of non-linearity, giving you a lot of changes to wander off and explore on your own, giving you an illusion of freedom and immersing you into the game, but in reality, if you look close enough, you’ll realise that the game is designed in a way to point you towards these “secrets.”
That’s a good thing though, as what you find during these exploration sessions are worth it. Whole new skill trees (which are unequal in how interesting they are) and weapons are “hidden” in these parts, which make exploration really rewarding and give you the feeling that you found this, and that the game didn’t give it to you. The lore you can find here is also really good, providing quality world building, as you’ll read about neighborhoods turning on each other, the rise of the WLF, people losing hope they’ll make it, context as to why a certain place is filled with infected. My favorite example of the latter is one of WLF soldiers being bit, one of which shoots himself and the other turns, a note explaining that they got drunk on patrol and got caught by surprise. It’s a great piece of tone-setting, reminding you that in this world, even in these new forms of society that are the Jackson community and the WLF’s stadium, nothing will ever truly be normal again, and that that sense of security that the survivors have built themselves is only a feeling, not reality. The world-building also relies on the places you visit during your adventure: the hospital that served as ground zero for the infection in Seattle or a cruise boat that carried infected on board and where a passenger started killing everyone that was sick out of precaution are stand-outs.
The world is also sold by the state-of-the art graphics, animation and engine. I have to mention the great rope physics and the glass shattering, two prime examples of the care the developers put into this game (the best puzzle in the long list of great puzzles in the game being one that combines glass shattering and rope physics). The graphics are just insane, just look at the way blood drips on the faces of characters, the lighting is amazing (especially at the twilight of Abby Day 1). The animations are realistic and perfectly flow into one another: when a guy convulses, I believe it, especially when coupled to the excellent sound design, making you listen to the sound of someone dying and the screams of terror of his friends over and over again. The engine is so good that everything reacts the way you’d imagine it would every single time, without fail, you expect to find splashes of blood where they actually are, you’ll be terrified when you make someone blow up for the first time. Everything feels real, including the characters in how they look, and how they’re written, which I do believe are written as well as they were in the first game. I’ve seen people say that the characters in this game pale in comparison, that they aren’t memorable, but I disagree. I think that the lack of memorability comes from the number of characters more than their writing. Dina is a perfect partner for Ellie, Manny is great fun, Mel is detestable but understandable, Owen is the only lucid character in this whole story, Tommy’s writing in this game is great, Jesse is a protector of people he loves, Lev is pretty funny (asking Abby about her relationship with Owen while she’s scared out of her boots on top of a crane made me cackle) and you don’t really spend enough time with Yara for her to shine. This feeling of realness, wether it come from the writing, the world building, the graphics or the physics of the game really help the game sell its message and themes.
As it did in the first game, the gameplay sells the story. This time instead of projecting yourself on Joel because you have been through Sarah’s death with him, because you’ve felt how much of a pain in the ass it is to get anywhere in this world, you project yourself on Ellie because you have done the atrocities she has done, you have felt the guilt and shock she shows at the end of day 2, but you have kept going on because the game masterfully reminds you why you’re doing this.
The flashbacks are absolutely key to keeping Ellie and the player aligned, especially the first one. Ellie’s birthday visit to the museum is one of the best moments in video games as a whole. It’s expertly written, recapturing Joel and Ellie’s relationship from the first game and presenting in a lighter moment that you never really get in the first game, where you’re under constant pressure of an infected suddenly appearing. Suddenly, all feels normal again, like re-reading an old text from a loved one where, for a moment, it feels like they’re still around. Joel and Ellie clearly love each other, they finally have a life worth living, where they can allow themselves a lighter moment. This reminder of the love and affection that Ellie and Joel had for each other, and that you had for them, motivates you for Day 2, which is by far the most gruesome and will make you question why you’re even still doing this. Dina is sick, the WLF are everywhere, you run into seraphites, you then go out to search for Nora, where you violently torture her to learn the information you want. I’ve evoked this earlier, but at the end of the day there’s this great scene where Ellie takes of her shirt to reveal bruises all over her back, all while crying because of what she’s done. You’ve probably started to doubt the morality of your quest by now, you’ve inflicted death and pain countless times already, but seeing Ellie in this state will make you start to worry for her wellbeing. The game knows the player cares about Ellie, and it plays off of this to make sure that if you didn’t want for this quest for blood to stop because you doubted its morality, you’d want it to end because of what it’s doing to Ellie. And then the second and third flashback hits.
Showing the growing distrust between Joel and Ellie and their eventual fight, you realise that for Ellie, this isn’t as much about avenging Joel as it is forgiving herself for wasting her last few years with him still around, further reinforcing that feeling that Ellie should not be doing this,. Ellie and Jesse seem to agree that they should cut their losses: Dina is sick and pregnant, every time they put a foot outside of that theater they are at risk of dying, all of this is too dangerous. So they decide to go out, find Tommy and get out, or at least that’s what Ellie says. She actually wants to kill Abby more than save Tommy, and is using the latter to justify continuing her quest for the former. Presented with a choice between going to the aquarium, which seems to be Abby’s hideout, or following a lead about a “trespasser” which seems to be Tommy, she argues in bad faith that the trespasser could be someone completely different and goes for the aquarium, which Jesse calls out as being selfish and her not caring for Dina or Tommy, and he’s completely right. This isn’t the first time a companion character has called out Ellie for her dubious morality, Dina did it as early as Day 1, when Ellie tells her that she doesn’t want anyone else to kill Abby, that she wants to kill her herself, to which Dina responds “she’d still be dead.” If the original left it up to the player’s personal appreciation if Joel was a villain, Part II clearly deems Ellie to be wrong.
Then, the switch to Abby. What a bold choice. You may not like this game’s story, but you can’t argue that it had balls killing off Joel and making you play as his killer, all while trying to convince you that she’s not worse than Ellie. Does it succeed though ? Well, as said in the intro, the parallels are a bit on the nose, and Abby’s dad death doesn’t really make us connect to Abby immediately like Sarah’s death did with Joel. He seems like a great guy and all, saving zebras, cracking jokes, and even hesitating about doing the surgery on Ellie, but we aren’t shocked or surprised by his death. We know it’s coming, so we don’t empathise with Abby as we did with Joel, because Sarah’s death was unfair and shocking in its suddenness, we didn’t have 7 years of asking ourselves if the doctor’s (and all of the other fireflies’) death was justified.
But Naughty Dog knows this, and makes us align with Abby gradually, by showcasing her relationships that are so relatable. Manny’s friendship, the complicated love story with Owen are great examples of this. Those two characters are standouts in this game (alongside Dina), especially Owen who’s an idealist who’s self-aware, which is a great contrast to Abby’s self-focused thoughts and Ellie’s cruel lack of self-awareness. You can see his impact on Abby when she decides to go save Lev, as Owen had previously questioned the rightfulness of deeming Seraphites to be fanatics rather than just people of a differing opinion.
I also really love the use of Abby to show the uselessness of vengeance. She still has nightmares of her dad’s death, she pushes Owen away because she doesn’t have any place in her heart for love as hate is already filling it. Naughty Dog, by making Ellie do the same with Dina at the end of the game, because she’s had a nightmare of Joel and wants to stop having them, encourages the player to disapprove of Ellie’s choice, because we know that Joel’s killing didn’t help Abby. She regretted not being with Owen, and she didn’t find peace. She only found peace when she showed love, acted in all selflessness by saving Yara and Lev. Going down a path of vengeance only alienated her more, it was love that made her rekindle with her humanity.
As for this relationship between Lev and Abby, it’s alright. I don’t feel strongly one way or the other about it. I do love the fact that Abby didn’t want to kill Ellie and Dina because of Lev, really showing that love has saved her from the cycle of vengeance, even though it would’ve been justified (although regrettable) to continue said cycle by killing Ellie and Dina. Personally, seeing Owen dead, killing off all chance of Abby being happy with him again really hurt me. I really liked Owen, and I really liked Abby, and I wanted both to be happy together, so I am kinda mad at Ellie for killing him. The performance by Laura Bailey really displays Abby’s love for Lev, so although I didn’t personally care for him much, let’s say Abby cared for the both of us.
Now, the ending. You can probably already guess that I love it. Ellie’s choice to go to Santa Barbara, motivated by Tommy, who looks like a worse version of who Ellie is about to become (a lonely, crippled man, which parallels Ellie’s loss of Dina and JJ and her fingers being bit off), is heartbreaking. The player is forced to watch a person he loves destroy her life in quest for vain vengeance, which he knows will be of no use.
But then, she can’t do it. She can’t kill Abby, even when presented with the opportunity. She remembers Joel, her last memory of him being one of forgiveness, and she lets Abby go, finally breaking the cycle of vengeance.
I used to think this was the wrong ending for this game, yet I still liked it because it was a “good” ending and Ellie had finally seen the light, although a bit late. I believed that the tonally right ending for this game wasn’t a “good” ending though, but an ending where Ellie couldn’t stop herself in time, having now lost two fingers, a family, her humanity, and still not having healed. That would sell the story of vengeance being destructive. But this story isn’t about vengeance, it’s about love, and how it saves you from hate. And let’s be real, this ending isn’t a “good” ending, it’s dreadful. Ellie’s lost her family, fingers, and is scarred for life. The only positive thing about the ending is that she hasn’t completely lost her humanity (even though it’s been consequentially damaged). The price of hate is still on full display, but there is a glimmer of hope that maybe Ellie will be able to find the missing part of her humanity again. This act of compassion by Ellie, to save Abby, maybe to spare Lev from going through what she’s gone through, saves Ellie herself. And that is the true message of this game: not that vengeance is bad (even though it is certainly a theme of the game), but that love and compassion is what saves you from it, in the same way the original sells the idea that love is what saves one from being a monster. In the same way Lev saved Abby, and Abby spared Dina, Ellie spares Abby. The biggest question is why. I personally believe it’s for two reasons: not wanting Lev to go through what she’s gone through out of compassion, and the fact that Ellie remembers that her last conversation with Joel was one about forgiveness and trying to forgive an unforgivable act. In the same way she tried to forgive Joel for such an act, she decides to do with Abby what she couldn’t with Joel. This, of course is up for debate, and even two years on from my original play through, I still don’t know if I’m sure of this interpretation. After all, Lev is a non-factor in the ending, except for Ellie putting a knife to his throat, so my interpretation doesn’t seem to be the one put forward by Naughty Dog.
The final Joel flashback. What a scene. I’ve always believed that love is cruel in a beautiful way. Simply put, no matter when someone leaves, it’ll always be too soon. There always will be one more “I love you” you could’ve said. This scene didn’t change my vision of life and love, it comforted it greatly though and it did make me push my conviction further. Life is too short to wage war on the people you love, so love them. Love is forgiveness. Even if they fail you sometimes, as long as it isn’t so recurring that you can’t even say in good faith that they love you, forgive. And I absolutely love Joel’s refusal to change anything about what he’s done. He had a chance to pull her back in easily by saying he was sorry, but he doesn’t. His love for Ellie is unconditional, unforgiving. And Ellie’s “I don’t know if I can ever forgive you for that… but I’d like to try.” is the best line I’ve ever heard in a video-game ever. That is a statement about love and its power that I’ll never forget. For a game so grim, so horrible, so violent, this line is so relentlessly optimistic, so convinced that love eventually always beats hate.
I love this game, it’s story, its message and it’s themes. No game has ever left me staring blankly at the credits, completely drained emotionally. No game has made me think for this long. It’s taken me two weeks to write this because I kept believing my writing wasn’t good enough for it, that it didn’t translate all that I felt while playing well enough. I still don’t think I’ve done it justice, so please play it, and if you have already and hated it, please replay it.
(Also, for future reference, I may make a YouTube video out of this review, so if you ever see a video that has this review as a script or the base of a script on this YouTube channel (and not anywhere else), don’t worry, it’s not plagiarism)
However, I would encourage a second playthrough. Going into the game for the first time, I had heard of the backlash and I knew basically the whole plot. I didn’t care for The Last of Us when Part II came out, so I just wanted to know what the controversy was about. Then I played the original, and was interested in Part II, expecting to hate it because of the noise… and I loved it. Knowing Joel’s death in advance help me take my knee-jerk reaction out of it and really look at the story Naughty Dog was trying to tell, and I loved it so much. I was never trying to avenge Joel, because I had already accepted his death by the time I started playing, I was terrified for Ellie. When that shift in perspective hits, the game just clicks (infected-related pun fully intended). This was my second time with the game, and I was probably more attached to Joel this time around as I have now played the original twice and have even done a video essay about it, so I was more affected by his death this time around. I was starting to believe that I too wouldn’t want to spare Abby by the end, that maybe my first playthrough was one of a contrarian who just wanted to think differently than the Internet noise. But then, again, the game managed to change my mind by showing me the toll that vengeance took on Ellie. In simple words: it didn’t matter if I had forgiven Abby or not, I didn’t want to spare her because of forgiveness (even though I do like Abby’s character): I wanted to spare Abby because that was the only way to save Ellie’s humanity. In this sense, the game reminds me of the following saying:
“Forgive others, not because they deserve forgiveness, but because you deserve peace” - Jonathan Lockwood Huie
I could’ve hated Abby with all my guts, and I still wouldn’t have wanted Ellie to go to Santa Barbara, and I think that is a pretty powerful statement about how love is stronger than hate. Ellie leaves the one she loves behind, because she wants to pursue hate and vengeance, and who could possibly agree with that. I cried when Ellie left Dina, because she was pursuing ridiculous, inconsequential vengeance. It wasn’t going to bring Joel back, it wouldn’t stop the nightmares (as shown by the fact that Abby still has nightmares of her dad’s death even after killing Joel), it wouldn’t bring her any relief, and yet she still abandoned her loved ones. I felt bad for her.
People tend to say that this game is about perspective, and that it tries to deliver the incredibly shallow message that “there are two sides to every story, so don’t be too quick to go on a murder spree :(“ but I couldn’t disagree more. Even though some clues could make you believe this (the numerous, on the nose parallels between Ellie and Abby that include but do not limit themselves to: dead father figures, living in a very organised community, starting our time with them by hearing of an affair the previous night and by being offered the possibility to pet a dog…), I dont’t think Naughty Dog wants you to say that both Ellie and Abby are good people, that they both had their reasons for doing what they did. If you go back to the reveal trailer for the game, Ellie sings “But I can’t walk on the path of the right because I’m wrong,” which is no coincidence. Make no mistake about it: Ellie is a horrible person in this game (though I wouldn’t call her a villain, as the game doesn’t reason in the classic hero/villain dichotomy, preferring to present good and bad acts rather than good and bad people), and she is presented this way to show the toll of vengeance. Even if her original motivations are justice and present a direct link to the love she felt for Joel, the kind soul that is Ellie completely loses herself and becomes a monster, with the underlying objective being to make the player feel like a monster when he takes a step back and realises that, sure, the game forced him to do these things, but at some point, he was fully on board with it and wanted revenge as much as Ellie. I whole-heartedly believe that Neil Druckman’s intention was to present Ellie as a psychopath, and Abby as her victim (even though I wouldn’t say Abby’s a good person, rather that she is repenting by helping Lev and Yara and by sparing Dina and Ellie). The former continuously goes after the latter, even after Abby spares her not once, but twice, saying that Abby “f’ed up” by showing her mercy when interrogated about it by Dina. She puts her pregnant lover in danger, refuses to leave as soon as she learns of the pregnancy, menaces an innocent child to force her foe to fight her… And of course, she kills everyone in her path to get there.
I have to admit that, of all the critiques I have heard of The Last of Us Part II, the one that I have never understood is one that consists of saying that the game is hypocritical, as it forces you to partake in incredibly gruesome (and fun) killing gameplay all while telling you that killing is bad (for example, NakeyJakey’s excellent video about this game, with which I do not agree but have to say it makes interesting points and is very well made like all of his videos, please check him out !). I honestly do not see the hypo-criticism in that. Had we been on the PS2, with graphics and engines unable to show deaths this brutal and realistic, I would’ve understood. But, this game’s combat physics are the most terrifying part of the game (even though the rat king is a close second). Enemies scream out fallen brethren names, said dying brethren make traumatizing dying sounds, you can see the blood spurt out of their throats, using certain weapons ends in limbs getting torn off, guts being exposed, blood being splashed across the room… In a world full of fungi infected people with mushrooms breaking through their skull and covering their body, the most horrifying sight is one of a blood soaked floor with what vaguely ressembles a discombobulated human body in the center of it, with its organs lying around. In a world where you hear inhumane noises and clicks that inspire fear in everyone, the most memorable sound is one of a human’s last breath being used to scream out in horror at the realisation that he is missing a limb and that he’s already dead.
The presentation of the combat makes every encounter tense and gives them terrible weight. The arsenal you use is enough to compose the orchestra of pain that you’ll be dishing out. Explosives, shotguns, smoke bombs, riffles, revolvers, flame-throwers, melee weapons are all equally fun to use and efficient. It also varies between characters, making it hard to tire of each’s arsenal as they really mix up the gameplay style. Abby is clearly more about offense than subtle stealth, having no traps but having pipe-bombs and the ability to chain an insta-kill melee attack to an anterior deadly blow, while Ellie can have a more subtle approach with smoke bombs and explosive mines. Maybe it could’ve been a bit more vast, with one or two more traps, but all that is here is already enough to make you feel like Death itself. All this unhinged, gory violence really has an effect on the player, who will definitely end up feeling like something isn’t right with what they’re doing. The psychological price for using certain weapons is brutal. I only used explosives when necessary or against infected, because seeing its consequences on my victims was always shocking. All this violence sells the themes and plot of the game, and you can see that Ellie herself has doubts about her actions, with Ashley Johnson’s amazing performance really selling that idea masterfully, especially at then end of day 2. Seeing Ellie in this state, combined with the player’s own doubts, will push him to want for this mad quest for revenge to end, to see Ellie’s soul saved, but she refuses to let it go, sinking deeper and deeper into despair as the player continues to commit these atrocities, wishing he didn’t have to.
As for the pacing of fights, this game is closer to Uncharted 4 than one may originally think, as it relies on the same principle of going in and out of stealth, except this time the stealth is way more developed and the gunplay isn’t as viable because of limited ressources. You are going to get seen, the question is not if but when, and you need to try and reveal yourself in a strategical location, where you may lure ennemies into a trap (wether that be an explosive or a room with a single entrance where you can wait for them) or get back into stealth. This makes for a great encounter flow between tense stealth where you’re hoping that there is no enemy suddenly appearing while killing someone, and intense combat, where you’re looking everyone to make sure no one is flanking you and where you’re trying to make every bullet count.
As for the level design of the encounters, it’s generally really good, with large levels offering many ways to tackle them. Ellie’s entrance into the hospital is a great example of this. It also offers the possibility to pit different factions against one another a few times, for example letting some infected loose or trying to lure clickers to ennemies with bricks and bottles shattering (on a side note, it’s really cool to see Tommy use this same strategy against you during his sniping confrontation with Abby) All this contributes to the game feeling open and full of choices for you to make, which also applies to the world outside of encounters.
If the original focused on the corridor-type linear design Naughty Dog excelled at during the seventh generation, Part II quickly throws you into a seemingly non-linear world during Seattle Day 1. You have a map, and a devastated city to explore. I wouldn’t have enjoyed the game being open-world, as I do believe that Naughty Dog is the best studio when it comes to linear level design and that because of this they should never stray too far away from it, but in this small, contained environment, it rules. It’s actually a masterpiece in hidden linearity, with one discovery in one local leading you to another local in which you make another discovery which leads you to another local and so on and so forth. It’s way more linear than first meets the eye, making it hard to miss the actual cool stuff there is to do in the area and directly pointing you at it, making sure you get straight to it. The whole game is more open than previous games from Naughty Dog, being filled with this false sense of non-linearity, giving you a lot of changes to wander off and explore on your own, giving you an illusion of freedom and immersing you into the game, but in reality, if you look close enough, you’ll realise that the game is designed in a way to point you towards these “secrets.”
That’s a good thing though, as what you find during these exploration sessions are worth it. Whole new skill trees (which are unequal in how interesting they are) and weapons are “hidden” in these parts, which make exploration really rewarding and give you the feeling that you found this, and that the game didn’t give it to you. The lore you can find here is also really good, providing quality world building, as you’ll read about neighborhoods turning on each other, the rise of the WLF, people losing hope they’ll make it, context as to why a certain place is filled with infected. My favorite example of the latter is one of WLF soldiers being bit, one of which shoots himself and the other turns, a note explaining that they got drunk on patrol and got caught by surprise. It’s a great piece of tone-setting, reminding you that in this world, even in these new forms of society that are the Jackson community and the WLF’s stadium, nothing will ever truly be normal again, and that that sense of security that the survivors have built themselves is only a feeling, not reality. The world-building also relies on the places you visit during your adventure: the hospital that served as ground zero for the infection in Seattle or a cruise boat that carried infected on board and where a passenger started killing everyone that was sick out of precaution are stand-outs.
The world is also sold by the state-of-the art graphics, animation and engine. I have to mention the great rope physics and the glass shattering, two prime examples of the care the developers put into this game (the best puzzle in the long list of great puzzles in the game being one that combines glass shattering and rope physics). The graphics are just insane, just look at the way blood drips on the faces of characters, the lighting is amazing (especially at the twilight of Abby Day 1). The animations are realistic and perfectly flow into one another: when a guy convulses, I believe it, especially when coupled to the excellent sound design, making you listen to the sound of someone dying and the screams of terror of his friends over and over again. The engine is so good that everything reacts the way you’d imagine it would every single time, without fail, you expect to find splashes of blood where they actually are, you’ll be terrified when you make someone blow up for the first time. Everything feels real, including the characters in how they look, and how they’re written, which I do believe are written as well as they were in the first game. I’ve seen people say that the characters in this game pale in comparison, that they aren’t memorable, but I disagree. I think that the lack of memorability comes from the number of characters more than their writing. Dina is a perfect partner for Ellie, Manny is great fun, Mel is detestable but understandable, Owen is the only lucid character in this whole story, Tommy’s writing in this game is great, Jesse is a protector of people he loves, Lev is pretty funny (asking Abby about her relationship with Owen while she’s scared out of her boots on top of a crane made me cackle) and you don’t really spend enough time with Yara for her to shine. This feeling of realness, wether it come from the writing, the world building, the graphics or the physics of the game really help the game sell its message and themes.
As it did in the first game, the gameplay sells the story. This time instead of projecting yourself on Joel because you have been through Sarah’s death with him, because you’ve felt how much of a pain in the ass it is to get anywhere in this world, you project yourself on Ellie because you have done the atrocities she has done, you have felt the guilt and shock she shows at the end of day 2, but you have kept going on because the game masterfully reminds you why you’re doing this.
The flashbacks are absolutely key to keeping Ellie and the player aligned, especially the first one. Ellie’s birthday visit to the museum is one of the best moments in video games as a whole. It’s expertly written, recapturing Joel and Ellie’s relationship from the first game and presenting in a lighter moment that you never really get in the first game, where you’re under constant pressure of an infected suddenly appearing. Suddenly, all feels normal again, like re-reading an old text from a loved one where, for a moment, it feels like they’re still around. Joel and Ellie clearly love each other, they finally have a life worth living, where they can allow themselves a lighter moment. This reminder of the love and affection that Ellie and Joel had for each other, and that you had for them, motivates you for Day 2, which is by far the most gruesome and will make you question why you’re even still doing this. Dina is sick, the WLF are everywhere, you run into seraphites, you then go out to search for Nora, where you violently torture her to learn the information you want. I’ve evoked this earlier, but at the end of the day there’s this great scene where Ellie takes of her shirt to reveal bruises all over her back, all while crying because of what she’s done. You’ve probably started to doubt the morality of your quest by now, you’ve inflicted death and pain countless times already, but seeing Ellie in this state will make you start to worry for her wellbeing. The game knows the player cares about Ellie, and it plays off of this to make sure that if you didn’t want for this quest for blood to stop because you doubted its morality, you’d want it to end because of what it’s doing to Ellie. And then the second and third flashback hits.
Showing the growing distrust between Joel and Ellie and their eventual fight, you realise that for Ellie, this isn’t as much about avenging Joel as it is forgiving herself for wasting her last few years with him still around, further reinforcing that feeling that Ellie should not be doing this,. Ellie and Jesse seem to agree that they should cut their losses: Dina is sick and pregnant, every time they put a foot outside of that theater they are at risk of dying, all of this is too dangerous. So they decide to go out, find Tommy and get out, or at least that’s what Ellie says. She actually wants to kill Abby more than save Tommy, and is using the latter to justify continuing her quest for the former. Presented with a choice between going to the aquarium, which seems to be Abby’s hideout, or following a lead about a “trespasser” which seems to be Tommy, she argues in bad faith that the trespasser could be someone completely different and goes for the aquarium, which Jesse calls out as being selfish and her not caring for Dina or Tommy, and he’s completely right. This isn’t the first time a companion character has called out Ellie for her dubious morality, Dina did it as early as Day 1, when Ellie tells her that she doesn’t want anyone else to kill Abby, that she wants to kill her herself, to which Dina responds “she’d still be dead.” If the original left it up to the player’s personal appreciation if Joel was a villain, Part II clearly deems Ellie to be wrong.
Then, the switch to Abby. What a bold choice. You may not like this game’s story, but you can’t argue that it had balls killing off Joel and making you play as his killer, all while trying to convince you that she’s not worse than Ellie. Does it succeed though ? Well, as said in the intro, the parallels are a bit on the nose, and Abby’s dad death doesn’t really make us connect to Abby immediately like Sarah’s death did with Joel. He seems like a great guy and all, saving zebras, cracking jokes, and even hesitating about doing the surgery on Ellie, but we aren’t shocked or surprised by his death. We know it’s coming, so we don’t empathise with Abby as we did with Joel, because Sarah’s death was unfair and shocking in its suddenness, we didn’t have 7 years of asking ourselves if the doctor’s (and all of the other fireflies’) death was justified.
But Naughty Dog knows this, and makes us align with Abby gradually, by showcasing her relationships that are so relatable. Manny’s friendship, the complicated love story with Owen are great examples of this. Those two characters are standouts in this game (alongside Dina), especially Owen who’s an idealist who’s self-aware, which is a great contrast to Abby’s self-focused thoughts and Ellie’s cruel lack of self-awareness. You can see his impact on Abby when she decides to go save Lev, as Owen had previously questioned the rightfulness of deeming Seraphites to be fanatics rather than just people of a differing opinion.
I also really love the use of Abby to show the uselessness of vengeance. She still has nightmares of her dad’s death, she pushes Owen away because she doesn’t have any place in her heart for love as hate is already filling it. Naughty Dog, by making Ellie do the same with Dina at the end of the game, because she’s had a nightmare of Joel and wants to stop having them, encourages the player to disapprove of Ellie’s choice, because we know that Joel’s killing didn’t help Abby. She regretted not being with Owen, and she didn’t find peace. She only found peace when she showed love, acted in all selflessness by saving Yara and Lev. Going down a path of vengeance only alienated her more, it was love that made her rekindle with her humanity.
As for this relationship between Lev and Abby, it’s alright. I don’t feel strongly one way or the other about it. I do love the fact that Abby didn’t want to kill Ellie and Dina because of Lev, really showing that love has saved her from the cycle of vengeance, even though it would’ve been justified (although regrettable) to continue said cycle by killing Ellie and Dina. Personally, seeing Owen dead, killing off all chance of Abby being happy with him again really hurt me. I really liked Owen, and I really liked Abby, and I wanted both to be happy together, so I am kinda mad at Ellie for killing him. The performance by Laura Bailey really displays Abby’s love for Lev, so although I didn’t personally care for him much, let’s say Abby cared for the both of us.
Now, the ending. You can probably already guess that I love it. Ellie’s choice to go to Santa Barbara, motivated by Tommy, who looks like a worse version of who Ellie is about to become (a lonely, crippled man, which parallels Ellie’s loss of Dina and JJ and her fingers being bit off), is heartbreaking. The player is forced to watch a person he loves destroy her life in quest for vain vengeance, which he knows will be of no use.
But then, she can’t do it. She can’t kill Abby, even when presented with the opportunity. She remembers Joel, her last memory of him being one of forgiveness, and she lets Abby go, finally breaking the cycle of vengeance.
I used to think this was the wrong ending for this game, yet I still liked it because it was a “good” ending and Ellie had finally seen the light, although a bit late. I believed that the tonally right ending for this game wasn’t a “good” ending though, but an ending where Ellie couldn’t stop herself in time, having now lost two fingers, a family, her humanity, and still not having healed. That would sell the story of vengeance being destructive. But this story isn’t about vengeance, it’s about love, and how it saves you from hate. And let’s be real, this ending isn’t a “good” ending, it’s dreadful. Ellie’s lost her family, fingers, and is scarred for life. The only positive thing about the ending is that she hasn’t completely lost her humanity (even though it’s been consequentially damaged). The price of hate is still on full display, but there is a glimmer of hope that maybe Ellie will be able to find the missing part of her humanity again. This act of compassion by Ellie, to save Abby, maybe to spare Lev from going through what she’s gone through, saves Ellie herself. And that is the true message of this game: not that vengeance is bad (even though it is certainly a theme of the game), but that love and compassion is what saves you from it, in the same way the original sells the idea that love is what saves one from being a monster. In the same way Lev saved Abby, and Abby spared Dina, Ellie spares Abby. The biggest question is why. I personally believe it’s for two reasons: not wanting Lev to go through what she’s gone through out of compassion, and the fact that Ellie remembers that her last conversation with Joel was one about forgiveness and trying to forgive an unforgivable act. In the same way she tried to forgive Joel for such an act, she decides to do with Abby what she couldn’t with Joel. This, of course is up for debate, and even two years on from my original play through, I still don’t know if I’m sure of this interpretation. After all, Lev is a non-factor in the ending, except for Ellie putting a knife to his throat, so my interpretation doesn’t seem to be the one put forward by Naughty Dog.
The final Joel flashback. What a scene. I’ve always believed that love is cruel in a beautiful way. Simply put, no matter when someone leaves, it’ll always be too soon. There always will be one more “I love you” you could’ve said. This scene didn’t change my vision of life and love, it comforted it greatly though and it did make me push my conviction further. Life is too short to wage war on the people you love, so love them. Love is forgiveness. Even if they fail you sometimes, as long as it isn’t so recurring that you can’t even say in good faith that they love you, forgive. And I absolutely love Joel’s refusal to change anything about what he’s done. He had a chance to pull her back in easily by saying he was sorry, but he doesn’t. His love for Ellie is unconditional, unforgiving. And Ellie’s “I don’t know if I can ever forgive you for that… but I’d like to try.” is the best line I’ve ever heard in a video-game ever. That is a statement about love and its power that I’ll never forget. For a game so grim, so horrible, so violent, this line is so relentlessly optimistic, so convinced that love eventually always beats hate.
I love this game, it’s story, its message and it’s themes. No game has ever left me staring blankly at the credits, completely drained emotionally. No game has made me think for this long. It’s taken me two weeks to write this because I kept believing my writing wasn’t good enough for it, that it didn’t translate all that I felt while playing well enough. I still don’t think I’ve done it justice, so please play it, and if you have already and hated it, please replay it.
(Also, for future reference, I may make a YouTube video out of this review, so if you ever see a video that has this review as a script or the base of a script on this YouTube channel (and not anywhere else), don’t worry, it’s not plagiarism)
I'm gutted to be giving this grade to this game. I was so excited for it. But simply put, it feels uninspired, and honestly quite boring. It feels like Horizon Zero Dawn, with a few improvements, and not as intriguing as Zero Dawn, while not being as fun because the pacing of this game is not good. Simply put: they wanted to do too much. Too many side activities (most of which were already in Zero Dawn), too big a map (traversal is better than in the first game but still not very good). It makes getting to the main story a drag, a long drag.
Fighting humans has been made "better". I'm putting that in quotation marks because it feels like they've simply made it longer. Thay have armour now, so you need to shoot more arrows to knock the armour off and then you can kill them. Or you can try the new melee system, which isn't good. it's better than Zero Dawn, because there are more options, but it still isn't good. At least in Zero Dawn, fighting humans was quick.
In general, it feels like this game has made things longer. I played the game on very hard difficulty, and it wasn't hard per say, it was just a test of endurance to be honest. You're just shooting machines for what feels like age, all while they don't feel like a threat, just like a bag of HP. Maybe I should play on hard difficulty next time, because I will pick this back up, eventually, when I don't have such limited time to play. Right now, I don't want to play a 50 hour game that feels like it should be 30, because I don't have much time to play you know ?
Climbing hasn't changed, yeah sure they're more places you can climb, but you're still following a predetermined path.
The glitches were really annoying, but they've been mostly fixed, even though the AI is still dumb as hell.
I was dissapointed in this game as you can see. I'm just hoping that when I get back to it eventually, I appreciate it more.
Fighting humans has been made "better". I'm putting that in quotation marks because it feels like they've simply made it longer. Thay have armour now, so you need to shoot more arrows to knock the armour off and then you can kill them. Or you can try the new melee system, which isn't good. it's better than Zero Dawn, because there are more options, but it still isn't good. At least in Zero Dawn, fighting humans was quick.
In general, it feels like this game has made things longer. I played the game on very hard difficulty, and it wasn't hard per say, it was just a test of endurance to be honest. You're just shooting machines for what feels like age, all while they don't feel like a threat, just like a bag of HP. Maybe I should play on hard difficulty next time, because I will pick this back up, eventually, when I don't have such limited time to play. Right now, I don't want to play a 50 hour game that feels like it should be 30, because I don't have much time to play you know ?
Climbing hasn't changed, yeah sure they're more places you can climb, but you're still following a predetermined path.
The glitches were really annoying, but they've been mostly fixed, even though the AI is still dumb as hell.
I was dissapointed in this game as you can see. I'm just hoping that when I get back to it eventually, I appreciate it more.
I really don't know what to say about this game. The environments are the beautiful, the world in general is, the sound design is on point... Everything relating to the world is great. However, this game is a very generic open world game. This may seem weird, given that most people have claimed that it strived for originality, tried to introduce a few interesting twists on the cliché mechanics of the genre: there is no more minimap, simply the wind guiding you. Birds guide you to close side objectives. The goal is to make you feel immersed in Tsushima, for this not to feel like a game. For me, it kinda fails at this, simply because these aren't new mechanics, they're just a different way to implement the same old mechanics. It doesn't "hide the strings" of said mechanics, for me it makes them even more obvious. The bird mechanic especially really takes me out of it, because he gets stuck everywhere, and because you have to follow him really closely for him to move.
As for gameplay, it's good, but it's all deja vu. The stealth isn't the best, which is a shame given it's supposed to be a key factor of the story. The "form" mechanic is good, it can make the combat against large groups of varied enemies exciting, and I will say the swordfighting overall is pretty awesome. However, all the accessories, like the kunai, the grenade or the bow, aren't exciting to use, I much prefer slashing through my enemies.
As for the story, it suffers from ludo-narrative disconance. The stealth gameplay is bad, so I avoid using it, which makes Jin's "fall from honour" that's detailed in the cutscenes incoherent from my experience with the game. But, the story is pretty good, it has decent characters, an interesting moral complex (doing whatever it takes to win VS doing what's honourable), and a very emotional ending that I won't spoil.
The side activities are not all that interesting, even though there are way too many side missions (some characters give you 9 side missions as a part of single story-arc that could've been done in just five or less), that it can sometimes feel like a collecta-thon, which is fine in a 3D platformer, but not really in an action-adventure game. Most of the activities are just "click R2 here", the only thing changing between activities being how you find the place to click R2. Also, dishonorable mention to the "Liberate Tsushima" missions. I do however have to praise the legendary tales (which are cool side-missions that are interesting and use the beautiful open world to their advantage), the shrines (which offer a great view of the beautiful world), the duels (which use the great swordfighting) and the haiku's (which use the game's interesting setting of a feodal japanese world). Basically, when the side-activities play to the game's strentghts, their great, and when they don't, they aren't all that good.
This game is good, but it feels same-y. Most of the acclaimed originality of the game just feels like a new coat of paint on already tried and tested open-world mechanics. It has some really amazing stuff in there, the visuals, sounds, swordfighting, some side-activites, but there's way too much average stuff to be considered a great game.
As for gameplay, it's good, but it's all deja vu. The stealth isn't the best, which is a shame given it's supposed to be a key factor of the story. The "form" mechanic is good, it can make the combat against large groups of varied enemies exciting, and I will say the swordfighting overall is pretty awesome. However, all the accessories, like the kunai, the grenade or the bow, aren't exciting to use, I much prefer slashing through my enemies.
As for the story, it suffers from ludo-narrative disconance. The stealth gameplay is bad, so I avoid using it, which makes Jin's "fall from honour" that's detailed in the cutscenes incoherent from my experience with the game. But, the story is pretty good, it has decent characters, an interesting moral complex (doing whatever it takes to win VS doing what's honourable), and a very emotional ending that I won't spoil.
The side activities are not all that interesting, even though there are way too many side missions (some characters give you 9 side missions as a part of single story-arc that could've been done in just five or less), that it can sometimes feel like a collecta-thon, which is fine in a 3D platformer, but not really in an action-adventure game. Most of the activities are just "click R2 here", the only thing changing between activities being how you find the place to click R2. Also, dishonorable mention to the "Liberate Tsushima" missions. I do however have to praise the legendary tales (which are cool side-missions that are interesting and use the beautiful open world to their advantage), the shrines (which offer a great view of the beautiful world), the duels (which use the great swordfighting) and the haiku's (which use the game's interesting setting of a feodal japanese world). Basically, when the side-activities play to the game's strentghts, their great, and when they don't, they aren't all that good.
This game is good, but it feels same-y. Most of the acclaimed originality of the game just feels like a new coat of paint on already tried and tested open-world mechanics. It has some really amazing stuff in there, the visuals, sounds, swordfighting, some side-activites, but there's way too much average stuff to be considered a great game.