habened198

Mechanically thin at some points and frustratingly specific at others, Cloud Gardens gave me a strong desire to play a game like Cloud Gardens that was not Cloud Gardens, because Cloud Gardens is not very satisfying to play.

When we say a game is "too short" it sometimes means that we liked the game and would simply like more of it, please and thank you. In the case of Boomerang X, the game genuinely is too short. I like it, but it's as unsatisfying as hearing someone stop speaking mid-sente

If you enjoyed the first few minutes of Ascent, you might enjoy the rest of the game. It's an astoundingly boring grind and every single minute is exactly identical to every other minute of mindless repetition. So if you enjoy the first few minutes, maybe you'll enjoy repeating them for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours

The Big Con shows the player some genuine consideration by being irredeemably boring right from the start. Another game would trick the player by making the first few scenes fun, or by putting a gameplay hook near the beginning of the player experience. The Big Con does away with these notions early on and frees the player to decide whether they really want to plod through some pretty bad writing and extremely bad gameplay for longer than the unbearably long opening location.

Most people can hold their breath longer than Townscaper can hold even the most eager time-waster's interest.

Eastward is barely a game. It looks and sounds pretty but there is almost no gameplay and everything - EVERYTHING - happens so slowly and in such a laboriously boring manner that the nice visuals (and they are nice) can't even come close to salvaging the game overall. Eastward isn't just retro with its slow, plodding, dull, boring, time-consuming gameplay. Even retro games respected the player's time and attention to some degree! I truly cannot stress enough how little **** there is underneath Eastward's initially-flashy visuals. It's as deep as a dry puddle. Which robs even its better qualities of any impact. Yeah, it's pretty to look at - until you spend way too much time in an area with nothing to do. Its characters seem interesting - until it turns out they have nothing at all interesting to say or do. Flat writing is a real problem in this game. But the realest problem that actually puts this game in the ground is the gameplay. There's hardly any of it, yet it still takes a ton of time, and every last moment of it feels worse than if it was released 10 years ago for $0.

TOEM is game of the year material. If I have one complaint, it's that I want more TOEM. Its controls might not be perfect and it might not give you something to do for 50 hours and more, but it doesn't waste your time and it's polished to an extent that literally nothing else is (with the possible exception of A Short Hike). Any critic giving this game less than 90 really ought to turn in their badge. You don't have to like it, but if it's your job to understand video games then there's really no excuse not to give this game some serious love and respect.

Psychonauts 2 brings some plot resolution to the series, but the vehicle is an incredibly disappointingly clunky story that feels too short to give anything close to satisfaction. The writing seems to come from a school of first introducing a character and then immediately solving all of their problems. There is little-to-no room for any relationships or character arcs to develop. Would I play Psychonauts 3, no matter how much it costs? Yes, absolutely. But let's be clear: Psychonauts 2 is a regression in storytelling (the first was much, MUCH stronger) and a lateral move in terms of gameplay (at best). Really, the gameplay and platforming is so old that it drags down an otherwise positive (if deeply disappointing) experience.