degonyte tarafından yazılan son incelemeler

This review is intended for people who are wondering if this version of San Andreas is at all playable. I've previously played this game on Playstation 2 and Xbox, and I also own the original Steam version, so a few weeks ago I was also wondering whether to even bother with this.

Just to get it out of the way, the Definitive Edition is not a good example of how to do a remaster. Many of the original bugs remain in the game, some of the songs are missing due to expired copyrights, and I've even encountered some new issues during my playthrough in the form of glitches that could've been gamebreaking, but were easy to resolve.

The graphics of this version are hit/miss. Truth be told, the original San Andreas looked bad even at the time of release; the 3D universe of GTA games were really more about the gameplay and extracting as much performance from the PS2 console as possible through all sorts of dark coding rituals. The result was nothing short of a technological marvel at the time, but not one that was always easy on the eyes. Still, the hazy, orange aesthetic of Los Santos in particular gave the game a nostalgic, early '90s vibe that went really well with the game's story and setting.

The Definitive Edition doesn't always succeed in preserving that particular aesthetic, so if you are looking for a full-on nostalgia trip, then this is perhaps not the best way to experience it. On the other hand, this version does look better in places. Not GTA V level good by any stretch of the imagination, but sharper than the original. There are some issues, however, with rendering distant objects, which may appear as undefined blobs until you get closer. Also, being able to see Mount Chiliad and the skyline of San Fierro from across the map sort of ruins the illusion of the map size, but it is what it is.

As said, I own the original Steam version as well, but what made me end up choosing the Definitive Edition for a new playthrough was the convenience of it. Full controller support and being able to seamlessly switch between that and kb/m was a definite blessing, since in the Steam version I had to go into the task manager and disable a bunch of things to even get the kb/m to work somewhat properly (and repeat this step every time I started up the game), and the less said about the controller support the better.

The Definitive Edition also has a few quality-of-life changes, such as a weapon wheel, as well as a checkpoint system that makes it a bit easier to work your way through the missions. They also made the Supply Lines mission easier by giving the RC plane a lot more fuel and armor. My 100% playthrough of the original is too long ago for me to notice any other concrete differences, but I did feel like I had an easier time getting to 100% this time around.

In the end, the Definitive Edition of this game is kinda half-assed and does as many things wrong as it does right, but truth be told, it was mostly fine to relive San Andreas in a hassle-free manner. You might be able to curate a better experience by modding the original, but if you're like me and you just want to (re)play this game without jumping through hoops, the Definitive Edition allows you to do that without too many issues. On the other hand, if you're looking for an experience that is true to the original, then just find a copy of said original on your (retro) platform of choice.

It never feels good to be this critical of a small indie project, but even with the best will in the world, I could not recommend this game. Monument belongs in the Hellbound category of games that draw inspiration from old-school shooters but do everything worse than the classics they're trying to emulate. Guns are generic, level design is obtuse, and the combat relies on cheap, predictable enemy spawns. Not much else to say, as the game only takes around 1.5 hours to complete. Thankfully it is not overpriced like the aforementioned Hellbound, but even then, there are better ways to spend your time.

Just for transparency's sake: I have playtested Selaco, and during this time, I've put dozens of hours into the game and seen it in various states of completion, which includes the review build that was sent out to content creators and gaming outlets, and the current release build. I did, however, pay for the game.

Selaco takes place in a fully immersive game world that features mindboggling amounts of detail and interactivity. Though the devs' perfectionism would have you believe differently, not a single area in the game feels half-assed or superfluous.

This ambitious approach is reflected in the design, as well. Everything, from the gunplay to the encounter design, the UI and the many secondary game systems and mechanics, feels fleshed-out and thought-out. Nothing is or isn't present in the game without a reason.

You could take each individual aspect of Selaco and compare it to any other FPS on the market, and it is likely that Selaco would come out on top or at the very least be close. Whether it's the combat, the sound design or the overall aesthetics, it's all just pure quality.

Now, if you are worried about getting burned by Early Access abandonware, Selaco is not your typical EA release. You already get access to the first chapter (i.e. the base game), which can take you anywhere from 10-15 hours to complete the first time around. It is a complete, polished experience fully worth the price of admission by itself. In fact, just about any other developer would've made this a full 1.0 release, but the developers believe that they can make the game even better for that occasion. But for all intents and purposes, you can see this as a full release and the two subsequent chapters as free DLC.

After this many hours put into the game, one thing in particular sticks out: the developers of Selaco have a deep understanding of FPS design. It borrows all the right elements from classics such as FEAR, Half-Life and Doom 3. Don't let this description fool you, though: Selaco is still very much its own thing and plays unlike anything else.

The inspiration Selaco took from the classics is anything but gratuitous. This highlights the quality of Selaco as a game while also highlighting the potential pitfall of retro FPS games developed by less knowledgeable people. In order to pay homage to the legendary games of old, you must command a thorough understanding of what made them great. Selaco is built upon exactly that sort of knowledge; many other games are not.

My hope is that Selaco raising the bar will inspire more indie developers to start similarly ambitious projects. Before we know it, we'll be living in a new golden age for the FPS genre. For now, I can highly recommend Selaco to anyone who is at all into single player shooters.

FEAR 3 is Call of Duty with bullet time. That's the short version of it.

The FEAR franchise as a whole gives you a very good insight into the way FPS design was 'modernized' across the second half of the 2000s, often at the expense of player agency.

The first FEAR still had firm roots in old-school design, with arena-like areas created primarily to facilitate combat. Health was handled through portable medkits instead of regenerating health, which naturally forced the developers to put a lot of thought into pacing.

Being a game from 2005, it already did the Half-Life thing of a continuous narrative that rarely took control away from the player, although in terms of the actual gameplay experience, it had more in common with sprite-based '90s shooters. Sure, the horror plot added some flavor to the game, but FEAR succeeded because it relied on an addictive combat loop that carried the entire experience, much like the games of old. With its purpose-built levels as well as its AI programmed according to the principles of Goal-Oriented Action Planning (which I will not explain here), the game provided exciting, dynamic, almost lifelike combat scenarios throughout the entire campaign. It was so good at doing this that the bland monotony of the locales, which mostly consisted of industrial plants and office buildings, was forgiven by most who played it.

FEAR 2 (2009) already did away with many of these old-school elements, but it wasn't until FEAR 3 that the franchise had transformed into something barely recognizable. FEAR 3 was released in 2011, by which time Call of Duty's chokehold on the entire genre had become undeniable.

As such, FEAR 3 followed many of the trends of the day. Health pick-ups were gone and replaced by regenerating health, and instead of a healthbar we can tell how much we've been hit by the amount of raspberry jam on the screen. This may seem trivial, but it had a profound effect on the gameplay loop. Because the developers could now reasonably assume that the player was able to get back to full health at all times, there was nothing holding them back from throwing entire clown closets worth of enemies at them throughout the game. Where in the original FEAR you had to clear each area of just a handful of highly intelligent enemies, they now tend to come in waves that have to be cleared before you can move on to the next area.

To aid you in dealing with this onslaught of considerably dumbed-down foes, we still have the bullet time mechanic that, along with the horror aspects, remained one of the few constants throughout the series. But since we lived in the CoD era, we also had to have a cover mechanic. So naturally, every combat arena is littered with waist-high walls that you can hide behind and pop out of every few seconds in an effort to hit any enemy that also happens to have popped out from behind his respective cover. This makes for the tedious 'whackamole' combat encounters that form the core combat loop of most Call of Duty campaigns, and any game that followed the series' example.

With these combat encounters also comes the type of level design that caters to it, where you move from cover to cover as you make your way through the levels. There are autosaves and there is little backtracking in order to ensure that the player does not break the linear cinematic structure of the campaign, just like in... you get the idea.

Interestingly, the game does provide a more memorable experience when, instead of controlling the default protagonist Point Man, you play as Paxton Fettel. The ability to possess enemies and play aggressively with your 'rented' body benefits the game's pace and versatility.

There are, however, two big issues with this. For starters, you don't get to play as Paxton Fettel until after you complete the campaign as Point Man, by which time you've likely already had enough of this game. In addition to that, the game is clearly designed with Point Man in mind. All cutscenes take place from Point Man's perspective, and the combat encounters all cater to the CoD-ified formula of cover-based shooting, with the campaign descending into increasingly unfun fights featuring horde-like enemies interspersed with annoying bullet sponges.

Had FEAR 3 been fully designed around playing as Paxton Fettel, the game would've had an identity of its own instead of being yet another relic of that dreadful post-Modern Warfare era of brainless, overproduced shooters.

FEAR 3 is not a bad game per sé, but ironically, it is the most dated one. *Because* it is so willing to latch on to contemporary trends, the whole experience feels kind of silly now that this type of design has gone out of fashion. What remains is a game with little in the way of a discernable identity. Sure, there is more variation in locales than the series has mustered before, and the game does have a few gimmicks up its sleeve in the form of its afore-mentioned horror plot and a wonky co-op mode, but at its heart, this is just a gray military shooter with a new coat of paint.

And perhaps fittingly, the phenomenal old-school design that propelled the first FEAR into cult status has yet to lose its charm.

I wasn't the biggest fan of this game back in the day. What with me already being used to the cartoon realism of Build games, the abstract, monotonous environments seemed lackluster by comparison.

Looking back now, it's easier to appreciate it for what it was: a unique game with some crazy-ass weapons and creative level design. Its humor and over-the-top violence are pretty typical of that era of gaming. It was a time when developers didn't take themselves too seriously and the overall lower budget required to make a video game meant that, as a gamer, you were thrown a curveball every so often. Rise of the Triad was one of those curveballs, being an FPS that stuck closer to the Wolfenstein 3D formula than Doom and its 'clones' , and expanded upon said formula enough to make the game feel like a totally different experience - an experience that is still hard to compare to any other title from that era.

What also stands out about this release in particular is that it's a blueprint for everything a remaster should be. Nightdive already have a good reputation for salvaging these ancient games and preserving them for generations to come, but ROTT: Ludicrous Edition is probably their best work yet. It features all of the content associated with ROTT (except for that 2013 reboot of course) and countless gameplay options you can use to tweak the experience.

ROTT is still not my favorite title from that era by a long shot, but it's a fun game to play when you do a few levels at a time. We should count ourselves lucky if Nightdive decide to give any other classic games the Ludicrous treatment.

The usual Ubisoft slop that still manages to get more watered down with each iteration. If you've played every other Ubisoft open world game and somehow still yearn for more, get this when it's 90% off during a Steam sale. If you want a good FPS, there are literally dozens of better games that you could get for less than half the standard prize of this game.

NOTE: I wrote this review during Early Access based on playing through the first episode only. I may update this review as I play through more of this game's content.

When I played the demo of Supplice, I was skeptical. The map included in the demo made it seem like the game would rely heavily on trapping the player inside a room with hordes of monsters. The sort of slaughtermap design that one might expect from the veteran Doom modders responsible for Supplice.

Eventually, the cool and unique look of the game did make me want to try out a full episode, and I'm damn glad I did.

Episode 1 of Supplice is more multi-faceted than the demo lets on. Levels are large and complex, but also surprisingly easy to navigate. The varied locales include urban areas and lots of foliage, things which are not typical in projects running on Doom's technology. In combination with the smooth, proggy soundtrack, this gives Supplice a faux-'90s aesthetic that reminded me a bit of old cartoons like Johnny Quest.

In another unusual twist for such an old-school FPS, Supplice has an engaging and well-written story... that is, if you care to read the logs through which 99% of the exposition happens. This storytelling method is certainly not for everyone, but if you take the time to read through the various snippets of information you encounter, it does give the world of Supplice some more flavor.

Originally, this project was to be a total conversion of Doom, and it still shows. The core gameplay sticks close to the source material, so this might put off those who are fatigued of Doom or were never that into it in the first place.

That's not to say Supplice fails to inject its own identity into the gameplay. The weapons are fun to use, with some, like the drill, being unlike anything you've seen in any Doom game. One of my favorite parts of the gameplay, though, is the enemy roster. There's a wide, well-balanced variety of monsters to keep you on your toes during any combat encounter. Importantly, there are no cheap hitscanning enemies like in many other old-school FPS games.

As it turns out, map 3, which is the one included in the demo, is the weakest of them all, so it might not leave the best impression for those willing to give Supplice a shot. The two levels that come after showcase the true capabilities of the developers, with some cleverly designed arenas that allow for the combat to shine. At times, these levels, with their large open areas and urban assets almost made Supplice feel more like a Build engine game.

Despite my skepticism about the demo, I really enjoyed my time with Supplice, and I'll soon dive into Episode 2. If you are at all into old-school, '90s FPS design, then give Supplice a chance. It's still in Early Access, but there's already a fair bit of content for you to enjoy.

As a 2010 PS3 exclusive, Heavy Rain was touted as a relatively early example of video games being art. With its cinematic approach and mature themes, it appeared a likely candidate to be taken seriously by skeptics, who argued that video games were 'mere' entertainment.

Looking back, it is a miracle that Heavy Rain didn't get universally panned by critics at the time.

Explaining everything that's wrong with the game would take longer than its approximately 9-hour runtime, so we shall stick to the basics.

Heavy Rain's script is bad, even by video game standards. We start from the point of view of one of the four playable main characters, Ethan, who loses one of his sons after the latter barely gets scraped by a car that must've driven no faster than 10mph at the point of impact. This implausible event sets the tone for how contrived the rest of the story is.

Throughout the game, major events keep occurring not because logic demands them, but because they are needed to drive the plot forward. Whether it's Ethan somehow losing track of his other son or FBI agent Norman (one of the other protagonists) getting into a scrap with Mike Tyson from Wish, few things in the story make actual sense when you stop to think about them.

The advantage of video game narratives is that a bad script can still be somewhat redeemed by a stellar presentation and performance. Sadly, the voice acting in this game is often lazy, and many of the side characters and objects look lackluster and clunky compared to the detailed, fleshed-out look of the protagonists. You truly can't take three steps in this game without tumbling into the uncanny valley.

Possibly the worst aspect of Heavy Rain is the gameplay. The movement controls are clunky, sluggish and unfun. They severely restrict the player's movement, because God forbid we take one step outside the beaten path. Heavy Rain is also from the era when quick-time events were everywhere, and they were employed lavishly here in a poor and lazy attempt to add some interactivity to this story-heavy game. Granted, Heavy Rain was from an age before Life is Strange and Firewatch, so there were less templates to go by for story-focused games. But that doesn't make it any less jarring that Heavy Rain is filled to the brim with arcade-gamey elements that seldom fail to suck the tension out of every set piece. Press X to Jason.

The gameplay in fact reminded me a lot of the forgotten Wii game Disaster: Day of Crisis. It was a cheesy, over-the-top interactive disaster movie whose main purpose was to show the player the many different uses of the Wiimote's motion controls. The difference was that that game did not seem to take itself seriously for one moment, whereas we are expected to consider Heavy Rain an engaging piece of narrative art.

In fact, while Heavy Rain can be a slog to play through and is inconceivably stupid in many regards, it is not boring. Disassociate yourself from the pretenses attributed to it and embrace it for the goofy, cheesy interactive disaster it is. At the very least, you will have an interesting time.

Heavy Rain is a fascinating artifact of a time when the industry's standards were much lower. Once hailed as a masterpiece for its storytelling, playing Heavy Rain in the current day and age makes it stand out as the perfect exhibit of how far most games at the time were removed from any sort of artistic merit. On a more positive note, we have thankfully come a long way since this game was considered the pinnacle of video game storytelling.

One day, it'll all just seem like a bad dream.

A simple premise can be a difficult one. For Before the Storm, Deck Nine were tasked with simply explaining how Chloe Price had become so enamored with Rachel Amber before the events of the original Life is Strange.

Many were skeptical of this angle, since in the original Life is Strange, Rachel is little more than a plot device that allows Max and Chloe to rekindle their friendship. The entire point of her character in that game was that she wasn't actually a character. So Deck Nine had the unenviable task of proving a passionate fanbase wrong by delivering a character that lived up to her almost mythological status.

And boy, did they knock it out of the park.

After a brief prologue during which Chloe first runs into Rachel at a DIY rock show, we are immersed in Chloe's troubled existence. Before the Storm takes place several years before the events of the original game, and about 2 years after Chloe's father died in a car accident, shortly after which her best friend Max moved to a different state.

The initial hour of the game establishes Chloe's state of mind in this period of her life. From the unprocessed trauma of her father's death to her enduring frustrations about losing touch with Max, Chloe struggles to keep herself afloat in a world that has already moved on. The game is intentionally confrontational in its exposition; through the eyes of Chloe, you get into conflict with nearly every adult you encounter in these early stages of the game, and some of your schoolmates aren't any nicer. There's additional background information delivered through Chloe's journal and text messages, which makes it all the easier for the player to empathize with her.

Not only does this help us get on board with a character that was, in the first game, oft seen as petty and selfish; it also sets the stage for Rachel Amber to swoop in as a savior. The first scenes with Rachel are the opposite of most of Chloe's interactions up until that point: she's on your side, she's sympathetic to you, and she's interesting to talk to. In this first act, the writers make it so that Rachel not only overwhelms Chloe, but also the player.

Of course, Rachel and Chloe's relationship soon becomes more complex, not just because conflict makes for a better story, but also because this prequel is by its nature required to conclude in a way that corresponds with the not-so-rosy events of the main game. More on that in a bit.

Though the main story thread in Before the Storm is the friendship between Chloe and Rachel, there are more plotlines at play. These involve mature themes such as drug dealing, dark family secrets, stalking and PTSD, but these story elements are handled with much more subtlety than in Life is Strange. In that game, we got on-the-nose, at times charicatural depictions of bullying, suicide, euthanasia, murder, and a bunch of other unsavory topics. While it made for an exciting game, it was so over-the-top that it could fatigue the player.

In Before the Storm, there is much more focus on character development. Primarily between Chloe and Rachel, but also between Chloe and other people, like Joyce, David and even Frank.

This is a double-edged sword, as the first 2 Episodes revolve so heavily around Chloe and Rachel that the other plot threads seem like red herrings, until they're suddenly not.

Deck Nine fulfills its initial promise by the end of the second episode, when the relationship between Chloe and Rachel reaches its zenith during and shortly after a school play. The school play - an unconventional adaptation of Shakespeare's 'The Tempest' - features the absolute peak of Deck Nine's writing, and I would argue the best writing in the entire series. Shakespeare's play becomes a metaphorical commentary on the relationship between our main characters; a thought-provoking, multi-layered commentary that is by itself seldom seen in video games. This is elevated all the more by Deck Nine disarming the player right before the climatic scene by distracting them with 'gamey' gimmicks, allowing for maximum emotional impact. If you want a perfect example of ludonarration - using gameplay mechanics to enhance and enrich the story - then look no further.

Yet, therein also lies the issue with Before the Storm. After this highest of highs, the game still has one episode and a bit to go. At this point in the story, though, the initial 'thesis' has already been completed: we now understand why Chloe was so smitten with the enigmatic Rachel Amber. So, out of necessity, the story then shifts focus to a subplot concerning the Amber family history, which takes up most of the third episode. While there are plenty of touching, emotional moments and memorable scenes in this final act, it does feel like a downgrade from the initial premise of the game.

This shift in focus may in part be motivated by Before the Storm's secondary obligation: it needs to tie in to the main game, which, for all its focus on chaos theory, has a lot of events that are set in stone.

There are more consequences to said approach. Some of the character development feels out of tune with what we see in the original Life is Strange. This may sound like a complaint, but it is not that simple: in Life is Strange, many of the characters are, even by the admission of its creators, stereotypes, at least in the beginning of the story. Characters like David, Nathan and Victoria start out as one-dimensional, and only gradually develop some depth as the plot evolves. The success of the character development in that game is a different discussion.

What this means for Before the Storm is that, depending on your choices, the character development is at times too good to be connected to the original game. Stereotypes can still be found, but the initial character depth is already a league above what we saw in Life is Strange, let alone the development some of the characters go through across the three episodes. To name an example, the David we see at the beginning of Life is Strange is a downgrade from the David we (may) see at the end of Before the Storm, even though the latter game takes place years prior. It is, however, tough to call this an error in judgment when it is in many ways the result of Deck Nine frankly having a much better writing staff than Dontnod (a fact that becomes even more clear when you compare any dialogue between both games.)

The 'incompatibility' between both games even extends to a more meta level. Life is Strange taught us that minor changes in a timeline may have large, unforeseen consequences - the butterfly effect. And yet we are to believe that the choices we make in Before the Storm - some of which cause dramatic shifts in the psychology of certain characters and/or their relation to other characters - have absolutely no bearing on the events leading up to Life is Strange.

As you can see, Life is Strange: Before the Storm leaves a lot of room for contemplation, which is a testament to the depth of the story. I have little hesitation calling Before the Storm the best game in the series and one of the best stories told in gaming. It is not perfect, but it is a fine example of how to properly use a video game as a mature storytelling medium without ending up as a laughable QTE circus like Heavy Rain.

The game's biggest weakness is that it is a prequel, and you might be better off forgetting about Life is Strange proper during your time playing. It will still leave you with plenty to ponder over as it is easy to relate certain parts of the story and characters to your own life, leading to a unique perspective that may even evolve over time as you gain more life experience. If you are receptive to this type of storytelling, Before the Storm will stay with you for years after the final credits roll.

Life is Strange is one of those games where you can make a solid case for why it's either amazing or awful and make a lot of good points no matter which side you land on. As such, whether you'll enjoy the game will to a large degree depend on your personal tastes and your overall disposition towards titles that favor story over gameplay.

That's not to say Life is Strange is bereft of gameplay in the same way that a visual novel would be; there's exploration, a (kind of lame) stealth section, as well as some ludonarrative elements that tie the gameplay and story together.

Still, the most 'gamey' part of Life is Strange can be found in its time rewind mechanic. In addition to supporting some of the story's core themes such as chaos theory and the inevitability of fate, it also adds an extra layer to the puzzles you'll encounter. Few of these puzzles will require a great deal of effort to solve, but it's still some extra flavoring for the otherwise straightforward gameplay.

While it's fine as a gameplay mechanic, the time rewind does reveal the biggest weakness of Life is Strange. Since the time travel at play does not operate by a consistent set of rules, it is one of those things that starts to make less sense the more you think about it.

That brings me back to my original point: how much you'll enjoy Life is Strange, and its story in particular, is down to how much you are willing to suspend disbelief. It's not just the time travel aspect of the narrative that needs to be tolerated for what it is; the characters and the writing also start to fall apart upon closer scrutiny.

While the voice actors are doing a great job for the most part, the script lets them down often, with some dialogue being so unnatural and choppy that you start seeing the seams if you are sensitive to that kind of thing. Examples include characters who say things like "that makes me feel better" when you make the 'correct' choice, or the main character Max endlessly name-dropping artists and photographers throughout the game, which I can only imagine is tied to one of the writers' weird compulsion to show off.

Created by a French studio, many of the more subtle aspects about the story and the way characters interact with each other also feel distinctively European. That's a topic for another time, but when you compare the writing in this game to the prequel Before the Storm, made by an American developer, the difference is noticeable.

As you can see, I have many complaints with the game, and there were points where the whole experience indeed felt stupid as hell, but I still like it a lot.

First and foremost this is due to the setting: the fictional Oregon town of Arcadia Bay is the perfect setting for a coming-of-age story, evoking memories of the 1986 movie Stand By Me. Whether you're inside its prestigious high school, at the Two Whales Diner or at Chloe's house, it feels like you're wandering through a genuine Oregon town like Newport. It's a solid choice for a mystery story with supernatural elements, and indeed the Pacific Northwest has been used for such before, for example in early X-Files seasons or Twin Peaks (the latter of which is an obvious source of inspiration for this game). For all the sins this game commits - and they are plentiful - the setting makes up for it.

As has become staple in subsequent Life is Strange installments, the music also plays an important part in emphasizing and enhancing this mysterious, nostalgic atmosphere. Or, to put in simpler terms, I hope you like indie folk.

Like I said, Life is Strange will be great or terrible depending on your disposition. It's a deeply emotional story that is flawed in many places, but the presentation helps turn it into something memorable and touching. If you are not open to that kind of experience and like to nitpick at every instance of bad writing, you are not going to enjoy your time in Arcadia Bay. But if you are able to see the bigger picture and accept this story for what it is, then it might just prove an experience that will stay with you for years to come.