The Outer Worlds is, at best, a game you'll play through once and forget about. Tim Cain (one of the two diriectors) is not one of the brightest minds to come out of Obsidian. One of the more unfortunate parts of his sycophancy towards Bethesda is in how this attitude has affected his own ability to design and create games - Of which Outer Worlds is a clear casualty, playing like an even less substantial clone of Fallout 4 (Which itself is barren in many ways). The visuals are nice, even beautiful, but - So what? Pretty, boring games are in a great surplus, and have been for a long time. Even then, the visual design isn't outstanding in itself; Empty streets and generic, sweeping landscapes, only supported by the quality of models. As for mediocrities, this game has a lot. The writing is unenthusiastic. The gunplay is unsubstantial. Quests are straightforward and uninteresting. Commentary is barely a thought deep. Trudging around the landscape is a way to kill time, and not a pleasure. Enemies aren't fun to fight. The world isn't enthusing to be a part of. Nothing in the Outer Worlds is engaging. Yet, none of these problems alone seem to explain just how lazy and soulless this game is. Outer Worlds is filled with forgettable components, and yet, the absence of any reason for existing seems so much more grating than that. This game has all the emotional backing of somebody squeezing out past glories they've taken part in, hoping to regain a lost sense of self-esteem. If you're going to market your game by riding the coat-tails of something great, you'd better be prepared to follow through. Outer Worlds does not, in any way worth considering. It might not be shockingly awful to play, but the sheer dullness means there's really no reason in the world to buy this game.
Sadly, another game where GoG is ignoring all the negative reviews for the positive ones. Again. We'll get ads for a game on sale, buy it, and find out it's broken. We check the reviews, and every one in the last 5 years is negative. Request a refund, and the support team will simply lie through their teeth. Last time I'm buying on GoG, sick to death of getting tricked by broken indie games - I'm going back to Steam. ... Oh, about Project Zomboid? Cool idea, 10 years in "Early Access", full of obvious bugs, very little progress.
Broforce is a short game; Multiplayer and community maps are a huge part. The Steam version has working multiplayer; GoG does not. This has been a long issue, and the developers do not care in the slightest. This will not get fixed. Do yourself a favour; If you want to give these people money, buy it on Steam. It will actually work there.
It's become a serious and detrimental trope that so many brilliant indie games - Games with heart, with interesting deconstructions and curious symbioses - Seem almost alien to the concept of basic playability. At this point, within our pseudo-indie dev community, the fundamental tennant of player-focussed design seems to have more rulebreakers than followers. In every genre, the problems of playability are almost identical between each game that fails to grasp them. In exploration/adventure games, for instance, it's mechanical obscurity and prolonged tedium. In squad-based shooters like this, similar to progressive roguelite adventure games, the main problem is the same here as elsewhere - There is an extremely thin line of experimentation or mistake allowed, before you curse yourself to failure - And it's not a quick failure, drawn-out; The utter reliance on checkpoints is a further curse, not a credit as they were designed. I won't get all windy, we've all played the game, but are two basic game-design considerations, so that we all may pretend the developers will see, understand, and appreciate it: - Cater to your new players. This is where so much tension comes from, so much criticism. You don't need to baby players; Just understand them! If you want them to learn by doing, don't punish them for trying new things. If you want them to study and think, make the discovery process a treat, not a chore! - Don't punish players for trying to think. Don't string them out. Players like to experiment and explore. In this game, I barely had the room to survive! Trying peaceful techniques (as the game's narrative nature would seem to support), searching for work-arounds and secrets, testing new mechanics... These were all quickly dashed as I was forcefully re-educated into a heaspace of "Kill everything. Always do the obvious. No failure accepted". If I ever made a mistake, even a small one, I simply crossed my fingers and hit the Checkpoint button.
At this point, you've probably heard plenty about this game. So, allow me to go over some pointers for the modern gamer: AGED WELL: There are games that have aged fantastically, and remain thoroughly enjoyable (Max Payne 1); and, there are games that have not (Morrowind). This is one of the former. While the combat could certainly use just one single thing to improve it - BLOCKING - the majority of the gameplay has the well-aged trademarks of most Source games: From the stealth, to the skills, to the dialogue, most of the game plays like a dream. And, most importantly: Playing this game in 2022, it seems as if all the bugs have been fixed!!! MANY FACETS: A great deal of the game is spent using passive abilities outside of combat, and as such, your non-combat skills are seriously useful. The line between action and calm is blurred enough that you won't feel like you're jumping back and forth between segments of each. Not only that, but the overall balance and the non-linear structure give you all the agency you could want. GOOD WORDS: It's easy to see a widening decline in the writing of video games, many of which have now become a contrived, derivative, or hyper-aware mess that lack style or concept. Even more so than other classic games, Bloodlines takes characterization to heart. With a cast of thoroughly entertaining and well-voiced weirdos, there is a serious allure to exploring dialogue and quests that you'll find will drive you to explore all those hidden nooks. So, that's V:M-B. If you're thinking about getting this game, you should get it. If you've got it in your library, you should play it. If you haven't tried it yet, you'll love it. For bonus points, once you've played a bit and got the hang of things, try a no-reload run (One save file, no reloading unless you die). Escewing the consequences of your actions is a great way to miss a lot of this game, and add that sense of caution and tension that is core to the Vampire: Masquearade experience.
Divinity Original Sin II is the kind of game that people will gush endlessly about, until the flaws begin to be pointed out. One by one, they'll receed on each of these points, until they finally admit, "Okay, it's just a 'fairly good' game"; and nevertheless continue to support their 5-star rating. In short, this game is genre accessibility in its most sugared form. It's a fun game for multiplayer; but is otherwise a childish, white-bread RPG with spotty voice acting, and not an ounce of true grit to be found (Although, it has fake grit in surplus - it's cheesy and goofy, and about as dark as a halogen lamp). DOSII not particularly deep, sophisticated, or even adult, in either the gameplay or the world. It's fairly engaging, especially with the chaos that extra friends can cause, but it is nowhere near as brilliant it is said to be, and a lack of said friends quickly reveals that the 'complex, multi-faceted mechanics' mostly amount to blowing up different kinds of barrels for AoE damage. Lauding DOS2 as spectacular is the equivalent to calling Forest Gump the greatest movie ever made; it's a claim made by people who only dare to scratch the surface, and exist in a world without threat or challenge. I hate to give 2 stars, but I really ought to even out the obsessive, overly generous scores this game recieved in its hype days and beyond. Although, after how strongly I was put up to this game, two-stars is quite accurately how it made me feel. It's not a bad game, but it's not great. It's conventional and easy to consume; so if that's what you're after, go ahead.
Maybe two stars is a little harsh, but Outer Worlds is just so bland that it's unmentionworthy. Every part of the game amounts to a big shrug. This one was phoned in very early on - there's no magic, no inspiration behind it. In other games you could tune out and have fun; but even this is too much for Outer Worlds, with gameplay of every slant falling quickly off after the first dozen hours at best. And this is what drags a three down to a two - There's really not much point to playing this rep stain, sadly.
... And it still feels fresh.
Kenshi shows promise, but needs work. Much of its acolades seem to be caught up in expectation. For the cost, it might be it might be wise to wait until Kenshi is further along in development - unless it seems like the kind of game you'd like to see stick with, as it moves through its beta.
