1. Kingdom Hearts if Goofy was a cannibal and Kairi was into incest. Relentlessly grim and nasty for little to no effect. I did not come out of any of the endings with any newfound appreciation for its story or characters and did not find the arc of "murderous hero with a disdain for humanity is fundamentally proven right in its attitude at every point and then everyone dies" to be particularly compelling.

2. I'll say, there is sort of a thematic cohesion between the main dude's characterization and most of the game playing like a jankier Dynasty Warrior; It's at least an interesting direction. 20 hours of this stuff is way too much though.

3. I think the most interesting seed in this game is the whole pact-beast thing, there's an element of ironic punishment and melodrama in those pacts that has a lot of narrative potential; alas it's never touched on for too long in the game.

4. I dunno, I'm glad I played Nier before this, because at least I know that Yoko Taro's games eventually end up in a place I really like and this edgy angst gets shaped into something that actually works for me. But yeah, not a fan of the first Drakengard, despite some good aesthetics and some neat ideas. It reminds me of Game of Thrones, but without the silly bits (I only ever liked the silly bits in Game of Thrones).

5. Ending E rules tho, that's the kind of silly bit I'm here for. It does not rule enough for me to actually get it in-game though. I just watched it on youtube.

1. A huge limitation of Video Games as Blockbuster Cinema is that by structural necessity most action games need to drop the player into the action as soon as possible, and to never keep them out of it for too long. This contrasts heavily with Hollywood Blockbuster aesthetics which, while featuring similar over-the-top action, often rely on that action being carried by sympathetic lead stars and an at least basically developed set of supporting characters. As it’s ultimately a bit hard to care about the action that much without a grounding human element; or at least some context.

Thinking about this kinda justify the juvenile and often over-the-top tendencies that sometimes pop up in video games, as featuring outrageous hyper-designed broad archetypes as characters is often a good way to side-step the problem. It takes only one look at Duke Nukem’s cover, and a couple of lines of dialogue, to immediately know what The Duke is about, and, if you’re so inclined, to care about his adventures. It might not be “human element” per se, but it’s at least context.

Titanfall 2 on the other hand follows in the footsteps of many modern shooters by basing itself around a more naturalistic kind of characterization for its setting and characters (even the Metal Gear-style quintet of bosses is less quirky than you’d expect), and in doing so falls in the same pitfalls. For how good the action is (and it is pretty damn good, absolutely), the lack of any context or out-of-action characterizations poses a significant barrier to ever actually caring about what happens in the game.

The growing relationship between Jack and BT is cute, but there’s not nearly enough of it and it’s not enough to really carry the game narratively on its own.

Again, I don’t think that’s a specific flaw of Titanfall 2, but a fundamental problem of the general “Game as Blockbuster Cinema” approach. Like, yeah, the game would be better if we spent 20-40 minutes following Cooper’s life outside of the war and learned to like him as a character. But like, I get it, you can’t really do it in an action Video Game of this type, especially not in an action Video Game of this type that sells itself on how fast and relentless it is. So more than anything I generally wonder if “Games as Blockbuster Cinema” was the best framing for these systems.

2. I guess that my take is also heavily affected by the fact that the aesthetics of stoic militarism kinda do nothing for me. I think Americans might get Way more than I did from that latter half, since it leans into those aesthetics and tropes context-wise.

3. The action is of course, great. Everyone has been hyping how good the action was in this campaign, and yea, they were right. It kinda gives Half-Life 2 vibes in how the game keeps throwing setpieces at the player, while also remaining highly interactive throughout. Great stuff. The time-travel bit is incredibly impressive too.

4. Instead of a healing ability or something, the main reusable defensive skill in the game is invisibility. I think this is a Really clever approach. Its main function is still fundamentally to give the player a couple of seconds for the auto-heal to kick in, but while a time-taking medpack/healing ability pushes the player to retreat to safety, invisibility pushes the player to move forward (as melee attacks don’t break the cloaking) and keeps the action going. Good stuff.

5. I originally wrote something here asking why are the main characters at war with Australia, but after googling it I learned that the main bad guy’s accent is actually South African. I cannot recognize anglophone accents for the life of me, so I retreat from making fun of it. You won Titanfall 2.

6. If this single-player campaign needed to be a showcase for the multiplayer component, it greatly succeeded at that. Between how smooth the pilot movement is, and the creative Titan loadouts I was constantly thinking “I bet the multiplayer for this is really fun”. I would have probably given the multiplayer a try if I had gotten this when it was released.

This is a great lil deckbuilder featuring some incredibly clever mechanics. It's a shame that it's like... Really easy. Like to the point where it feels like there's very little reward to master said mechanics and to play multiple runs; this is not helped by the fact that having only three "worlds" per run feels a bit too short; like, If I have a cool deck that does good this structure doesn't really let me enjoy it.

I'm here hoping for an eventual DLC or mod to expand a bit on the game, because otherwise, everything else in it is Really neat.