Full text: https://paste.ee/p/lDaIE
The big question for me is, for which audience this game was made.
The game consists of:
* Walking in a linear, static environment
* "Collectables" (Dialogue with another character, Stories based on european legends)
* Puzzles (Matching forms, using things in a specific order)
* Cutscenes
* Combat
Roughly half of the game consists of walking through a dead and static world. No moveable objects, nothing reacts to your presence. You go the path, that the developer had in mind for you.
The productionquality is high and probably the reason, why it got so well received. Graphics, voiceacting, faceanimation, sounds, music. Not much to criticise.
The elephant in the room is the lack of interactivity in this game, but in the same time not consequently going down the artistic walkingsimulator-path. Imagine Dear Esther with occasional fighting.
I personally expect a game to be a game. Give me enough interactivity or I will be bored. And I was bored for longer periods. Hellblade is for me in total a mixed bag of boring and entertaining parts.
A friend of mine likes easy and slow games. Your typical casualgamer. While she hasn't played the game, I imagine the long fights with many enemies and bosses to be frustrating. For her it will be likely a mixed bag of relaxed enjoyment and frustration.
Both types of gamers would ask themselves, why the game can't be more focused on the enjoyable parts and get rid of the annoying ones. And the question stands, for whom is this game? It doesn't want to be consequently a proper game nor a pure artpiece. It is schizophrenic. Risking to leave everyone unsatisfied at the end.
My personal recommendation: Start watching an uncommented playthrough of it. If you develop the urge to do, what you see, on your own, go for it.
Final thought: My guess is, that they tried to press something into the shape of a game, that would have ended better in form of another medium. Maybe a film?
