@jsprunk: I'm well on board for games that touch on serious subject matter. I would even say they're my preference. I just expect them to be done well. This one isn't. I don't know what you mean regarding politics since I don't read the game as having any political POV, nor did I touch on anything like that in the review.
For us, a 3/10 is defined as "bad." I've given multiple games 4/10 ("poor") scores in my time here, and this one felt worse to me.
@666Rich666: This is from a second review. So two people reviewed it during its original launch--something we don't do anymore. One gave it a 9, the other a 5.
@zanarkand102: I don't factor price into my reviews (as most don't, I'd estimate), since games get price changes over time and can even be acquired for free in many instances. Plus money means so many different things to different people. I can't tell you if a game is worth your $0/15/70, I can only tell you about my experience, which you then can filter through your considerations, financial or otherwise. I don't mind a short game either, this one is just bad in my opinion. I'm still hopeful for SH2 remake though.
@superseanbot: Thanks! I forgot about some of these but would note that it seems none of these are in Suicide Squad. Please let me know if I'm mistaken. And also, I do think there's some sort of doublespeak long-established within Rocksteady too. They call it a trilogy, but have on occasion included Origins, like in the interview linked in a different comment here. I think most telling is how the museum doesn't seem to make any references to Origins at all. Like I said, I'm still playing and hope to find some later, at which point I may then update this story. Personally I always enjoyed Origins even if the rogues gallery felt a little B Team.
@id0ntkn0w7: I don’t understand the hypotheticals, sorry. Hatred is clearly an “edgy” game on purpose. I think Palworld isn’t edgy and isn’t trying to be. A lot of this reads like you’re purposely misunderstanding me, and your comment history on site suggests this isn’t the first time. I’m gonna reclaim my Saturday now. Take care!
@id0ntkn0w7: It is self-aware in that they had to actually animate, for example, an animal crying as you use them as a living shield. I assume they aren’t blindly adding these elements, they just don’t care what discourse comes of it because to them, I feel, if it serves the gameplay, it’s going in the game. Their previous game, Craftopia, was similar in this way, but it didn’t have the audience of this one since the Pokémon angle is new this time.
It’s trying to maximize the player’s power fantasy so all of these mechanics that can look almost like parody or edgy are, I speculate, just good design according to the studio. That’s the cynicism and the sincerity. “Screw the discourse, this is our game, it’s an amalgam of what’s hot and you’re gonna play it even if it looks startling to you.” I think that subtle difference changes it from edgy to apathetic.
Admittedly I don’t know why you’re hung up on the human slave mechanic. To me it fits neatly into the rest of this argument. It adds gameplay mechanics to serve the player’s ability set, and doesn’t care what pearls are clutched as a result, but neither do I think they set out to make people clutch pearls.
markdelaney's comments