A victim of its own success.

I'm locking this review in now, because the tides are rapidly shifting for Helldivers 2. It should be no secret that this was a surprise darling that nobody expected to blow up to the scale that it did — least of all Arrowhead. There was some early bumpiness as player counts skyrocketed into the deep hundred-thousands and threatened to crack a million, leaving the servers on life support. Unlike its live-service failbrother PAYDAY 3, Arrowhead got Helldivers 2 sorted within a little more than a week, and managed to win back some good will that had been lost in the chaos. Memes were made, TikToks were shared, everyone got in on the in-universe propaganda, and all was well. It's rare for a game to blow up this much and this rapidly, but word-of-mouth was getting around faster than the plague. Helldivers 2 is a complete runaway success, and represents a very, very big win for Arrowhead after their many years of developing games.

What's unfortunate, then, is that Arrowhead have a strong vision for what Helldivers 2 is and should be. For Arrowhead, Helldivers 2 is a game where you get out of scrapes against bugs and bots by the skin of your teeth. You use every stratagem available to you, you coordinate with your team to make sure there are no blind spots in your composition, you run away when shit gets too hot, you focus on objectives and treat the bonuses as nothing more than bonuses, you get a laugh when your friend shouts "Sweet liberty, my leg!" after you accidentally blast them to kingdom fucking come with an orbital barrage. For the broader playerbase, Helldivers 2 is a game where you play exclusively on Helldive, you only bring the Railgun and the Shield Backpack, you only stand stark still in the middle of a field shooting shit until it's all dead, you only play bug missions, and you're not interested at all in anything that doesn't directly give you medals and slips and super credits. For Arrowhead, the draw of the game is the game; for a lot of players, the draw of the game is filling out the battle pass, and the actual gameplay is just the means to that end.

The latest patch at the time of writing has nerfed the Railgun, which has single-handedly sent the widest parts of the community into a complete and utter Three Mile Island meltdown. It used to blow Charger legs open in two shots on Safe Mode, and now requires about four in Unsafe Mode. That's the extent of it. If that doesn't sound like a big change to you, it's because it isn't. There remain an obscene amount of options available to deal with Chargers — EATs, the Recoilless Rifle, the (buffed) Flamethrower, the Arc Thrower, the Spear, impact grenades, just shooting it in the ass with the heaviest gun you have — but none of that matters, because they want to use the Railgun. And they don't want to use it in Unsafe Mode. And they don't want to run away from Chargers. And they don't want to kite them. And they don't want to dodge the Charger and shoot it from behind. And they don't want to call down a stratagem. And they don't want to blow up its ass while it's aggro'd onto a teammate. They want to shoot them twice with the Railgun. Anything else is "unfun". Go and look at the recent Steam reviews/forum or the subreddit right now, if you're reading this shortly after I've posted it, and you'll see for yourself how everyone is proclaiming this one change to the Railgun to be the abject harbinger of the game's immediate demise.

I don't know who to blame this on, because it seems exceptionally clear that the people complaining the loudest don't seem to have any idea what the fuck they're talking about. I've seen several different posts stating that the Railgun is the only gun that deals with heavy armor, which is blatantly false; these are people trying to adhere to "what's meta" without actually understanding why the gun they're talking about is meta. This is something about live-service games in a more modern context that I cannot fucking stand: everyone is a tier whore. There hasn't been a multiplayer game that's come out in the past ten or so years that didn't have day one articles talking about how there's only one viable loadout and if you're not taking it then you're trolling, or tier list videos put together by popular YouTubers who broadly end up dictating a meta rather than reporting on it, because nobody actually questions why something is thought to be good or bad. This whole phenomenon leaked from Everquest and World of Warcraft like the green shit from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and now every game has to deal with the consequences. The secret of the ooze is that it makes everyone fucking stupid.

"A game for everyone is a game for no one", proudly states the footer of Arrowhead's website. I thought that was an interesting choice of motto, but not just because I agreed with it; Helldivers 2 certainly seemed like one of the most broad-appeal overnight success stories I've ever seen, and I wasn't certain who Arrowhead meant when they said they weren't making games "for everyone". Who was this abstracted "everyone", when everyone seemed to be enjoying themselves? With the way the discourse has been shifting, though, I think it's clear what they mean: Arrowhead has no interest in appealing to people who are playing the game the way that the loudest players complain they can't anymore. These are people who farm the exact same missions the exact same way for hours on end solely to get 100% completion in the battle pass. Why would anyone make games for them? They'd be happier with a piece of paper and some boxes they could fill in. How's that for player expression and a varied meta? You can put a check mark or an X through the box! Make sure to come back every twenty-four hours when your dailies refresh and you can do it all over again on a different piece of paper.

I've been playing on Suicide Mission at a minimum since day one (okay, maybe day three or so), and I've done a fair share of Impossible and Helldive runs, too. They are difficult. I am not surprised that they are difficult because they are the highest difficulty setting available. I have had to improvise, I have had to run away, and I have had to scramble just to barely complete an objective since the moment I started playing the game. At no point did the Railgun — even with a squad of four seasoned players who had come from the first Helldivers, where the difficulty went up to fifteen — allow you to stand your ground and slaughter bugs like a Doom wad. Anyone who attempts to seriously say that they're a Helldive player and that the Railgun nerf has killed their bug-exterminator playstyle is fucking lying. These are players who do not at all know what they're talking about, and they lie about the difficulty that they play on because they think it makes their argument more credible. These people are temporarily-embarrassed god gamers. They think that success and prestige is right there, just barely out of their grasp, if only the devs would allow them to reach it, and all the while they actually belong on the middle difficulties. There's nothing wrong with playing on 5 or 6, or even 1. Play what you enjoy. But don't pretend like you're at a level above where you are when it's obvious to the people who are that you're not. It's sad.

There's a wave rolling in, and I can see the foam at the lip of it from here. We'll have the regular YouTube videos rolling out soon — How Helldivers 2 Failed the Players, Helldivers 2: Dropping the Ball, Arrowhead Studios Gets WOKE and GOES BROKE with Helldivers 2 DISASTER — and leaving players will call themselves "Helldivers refugees" when they find something new to play that they'll hate within a month. What I certainly wish isn't coming is anything resembling an apology or a back-down from Arrowhead. They'll be under a lot of pressure to make changes, and this is the kind of backlash that most companies crumble under. It's been said that players are good at identifying problems and bad and identifying solutions, but I think that's being a bit too generous. I'd argue that the overwhelming majority of players of any game are bad at identifying problems and worse at coming up with solutions. Extremely rarely have I seen a live-service game actually follow through on fan-suggested fixes to fan-suggested problems and not had the game immediately become worse overnight. I hope that they're able to remember their own motto: a game for everyone is a game for no one. Helldivers 2 just got unlucky enough to be branded as a game for everyone.

Anyway, it's pretty good.

Stunning.

I often find myself being at my harshest when it comes to kinetic novels, though especially towards indie projects made with Twine. I like works that can only operate at their fullest within the medium in which they were originally created; broadly speaking, I don't feel as though many independent written works featured on itch.io satisfy that particular desire of mine. Part of the appeal of visual novels as games rather than as books is through the audiovisual and interactive experience, and not simply the act of reading the text. Adding in music, visual art, player choices which lead to branching paths, warping or otherwise editing text in real-time — these are options that developers can include to capitalize on the fact that they are making video games rather than writing novels. If you include none of these things — if your project is little more than white text on black that you click "Next" to progress through without any ability to change the outcome of the narrative and without playing with the medium — what reason do you have to not simply publish it as a blog post, instead? You haven't done anything unique to the medium. Consider a theoretical game released by a composer that consists of nothing more than clicking on a song title, listening to the song, and then repeating this process for every remaining song. Without entering into an argument about whether this is a "game" at all, consider what I believe to be the more important question: would anything be lost if this wasn't a game? If this was simply an album released to Spotify, would anything be lost? If a Twine project without music or visual art or player choice or edited text was simply released as an article, would anything be lost? Games where you could move their contents to a different medium and lose nothing are inherently uninteresting to me.

To move The Devil's Imago to a different medium would destroy it.

Visually, this is a masterful usage of theming and layering. Diagrams of plant roots are presented next to diagrams of the nervous system. The Hanged Man card is layered directly over-top an image of an impaled man, censoring it. The tarot card spares you the sight once, but a later nightmare sequence allows you to look for a second time and see the true image hidden beneath the card. It's still monochromatic and rendered in a late-Medieval style, so it's difficult to make out exactly what's going on, which only serves to further enhance the horror spiraling out from beneath the narrative. Everything exists in a consistent style and palette; a dithered, sickly green and shades of gray that all melt together into a murky nightmare.

Essentially all of the CGs and sound effects are free stock assets, but they were utilized so well that I didn't even notice until I checked the attached "sources" document. It really speaks to the fact that you can go quite a ways in a creative endeavor without breaking the bank and without immense, broad talent; you don't need to be a master of writing and visual art and sound design and music and programming to make something incredible.

Not to suggest that the creator is untalented; Cecile Richard is very clearly a Renaissance individual who is capable of molding a variety of different media into a singular, cohesive work. A regulatory body ought to investigate them to make sure their personal history checks out; I've got a pet theory that they're a transplant from the Romantic era, sent to our time by some sort of arcane rituals carried out by their fellow Shelleys and Hoffmans. I did notice near the front-end of The Devil's Imago that the prose was remarkably purple for a game so strongly against royalty, but it eventually clicked as I continued to read that the author was invoking the Sublime. To see someone beating the absolute shit out of a thesaurus and slapping in every four-syllable synonym was something that was certainly a lot more impressive in the era before computers did it for you, and it's a common newbie-writer pitfall to include as many of these obscenely long words as you can. While I worried that this would be the case for The Devil's Imago, it isn't; a lot of very simple and very impactful sentences are layered throughout the work, contrasting against the flowery, overwritten, earlier parts of the work. As the narrative goes on and it becomes more and more difficult for the characters featured within to be poetic about the situation, the writing becomes simpler. As the plot becomes more and more inexplicable, it gets more complicated. This is an inspired choice. To be frank, the fact that I can talk about the common trappings of English Romantic-era poetry here and feel completely justified in doing so speaks not just to the quality of Cecile Richard's work, but also how utterly pedestrian a lot of video game writing tends to be. The AAA space with its millions of dollars and hundreds of writers' rooms wishes that it could even remotely compare to works being developed for pennies by a sum total of two people.

Without wanting to risk spoiling The Devil's Imago any more than I already have, I strongly, strongly encourage you to go through it for yourself. I cannot fucking believe that this game is free. This is far and away one of the best visual novels I've ever gone through, both in terms of writing prowess and aesthetic, and it's the exact kind of game that should serve as a monument for other developers to take inspiration from. More creators need to be directly influenced by this.

It only took until March to find the first five-star of the year.

Mild "spoilers" ahead.

There's a cruel lack of understanding of context and relations between mechanics here, mimicking the mechanics of some surface-level namedrop not only never reinforces any point it's trying to make, but also ends up creating completely disjointed gameplay, that's a pretty strong contradiction.

Game design is supposed to shape an experience based on how different mechanics answer each other, it's always been a matter of context and good use of its elements, the assertion that any kind of HUD or linear level design fundamentally conflicts with any sort of emotional implication is a seriously flawed argument.

If anything, the final claim about how "Shadow of the Colossus is the greatest game of all time" (objectivity in any art-related writing is pretty eliminatory) without ever mentioning the game beforehand, even as an example, shows that this essay/study comes from the place of someone having just discovered what subtractive design is and who holds it as some sort of golden standard, if it certainly encompasses interactive storytelling, I can only hope the impact it had on the writer's view of narration will lead them to realize how expandable it is instead of restrictive.

This game, "study," I mean, feels as though an amateur YouTube video essayist took one look at the average console gamer after playing The Beginner’s Guide and thought of putting their own spin on it but presented in the most preachy, condescending, and obnoxious way possible.

This “study” (which it insists upon calling itself) is an incredibly tacky and obnoxious attempt at teaching contemporary console gamers basic terms and interactive storytelling techniques utilised in games; there was absolutely no tact in the way it presented its ideas, which, while purposefully meant to parallel the very games it examines and critiques, still doesn’t lend itself to being a very interesting or engaging experience but instead like a series of flashcards paired alongside boring gameplay segments. (Which control like absolute shit btw)

This game study felt like a lab-grown, inauthentic attempt at being a sort of modern take on The Beginner's Guide catered to modern audiences who need simple ideas and terms bashed over their heads while keys are jingled in their faces; this was a complete waste of an hour.

https://youtu.be/oQy33B0BDC4?si=6LP4FKxZmgNaaOUj

^ me when I read another rlly bad rlly condescending tim rogers core essay

I just think it’s rlly interesting that some of the only games the writer of this playstation 5 exclusive gives his personal opinion on are other playstation exclusives,,, just think that’s rlly interesting and definitely not bootlicky !!!

There is something in the air- that something is an undying extension of #FucKonami, the movement that coloured the end of the 2010s in regards to the ever controversial company, as they seemingly abandoned everything they had built up in the plane of home video games, pursuing the golden goose of gambling machines.

Obviously, things have changed, but unless your name is Metal Gear, people don't seem to be forgiving. That is especially true for Silent Hill, a series I'm sure very few people here have truly played, but many know of. Many know of the botched HD Collection. Many know of the low quality games made in the afterglow of its glory years. Yet, despite this knowledge, many lack a proper context, a proper grounding to it all, and it results in the pit of thinking any new Silent Hill project must be bad, they almost have to be.

This lacking context rears its head further- people will call this game "western" or made by people who have nothing to do with the IP, yet when the credits roll I see the exact names I expected- Ito Masahiro and Yamaoka Akira. This game bleeds with their clear intent, especially Ito's, yet this goes unnoticed by many who have seemingly played this entry.

The game takes Ito Masahiro's concept of 'sakura horror', one he has talked about in the past, and rides it out for as much mileage as it can get, starting with the rather mundane notes that vaguely resemble the sakura, until eventually you're rushing down a nightmare, the walls peeling away into petals and the sakura monster following close behind. It's very effective imagery, especially amidst all the environments littered with decay, falling apart at the seams.

Its elements like these that mark Short Message as one of the first Silent Hill games in well over a decade to truly get the nightmare. It manages to deftly mix aspects of Alessa's nightmare from 1 and Claudia's from 3, alongside its own flavor- of a world constantly falling apart or in rapid decline, one that loops in on itself where it will only ever change for the worse, where the only escape is to break past the barriers placed on us that prevent us from moving forward. Acknowledgement of the past and remembering who your loved ones truly are, in a deftly Silent Hill move, one adjusted for a modern perspective.

I have to admit, I may be over praising this game at times, though it is satisfying to finally witness the series put out a single cohesive vision, for the first time since Silent Hill 4. It's a jolt to the system and only adds to my current optimism that yes, these new Silent Hill games can be great. They have the potential, and Ito has shown he has not fallen off over the years.

I suppose then I'll end this review on a criticism, and then some light praise. I do believe the main character, Anita, speaks far too often. She constantly comments on every event, and leaves minimal room at times to truly figure out what's going on. This leaves my highlights being the moments of exploration, detail hunting in the background, and of course the school section (which is one massive echo of Silent Hill's first entry). But, as a bit of praise, I quite loved the ending- people are like plants, in that they do need attention. They can't live solely off of themselves, we weren't made for that. So, the ending has the two friends, both wandering the same, lonely path, reach out to one another. With that, the sun destroys the nightmare.

It's a simple scene, but I found myself enjoying it.

i, for one, am thoroughly appalled that this series would ever have the audacity to feature a player character who isn't a totally morally righteous person. this is a travesty. completely out of touch

and the gameplay? it's such a shameless ripoff of the last acclaimed silent hill project that was released. what the fuck were they thinking?

i'm going to go return to silent hill 2 now - the most subtle and least blunt horror game ever created. at least that game doesn't have sticky notes with "bullying" written on them (granted, this one doesn't either, but that's not what i heard from the people who didn't play it, so it must be true)

I don't know man, I think there are good things in here, stuff like the art direction, music and atmosphere felt pretty decent. And I also feel like there was an intention to tell an interesting, meaningful story with very important themes that should be talked about. But in the end, it shows a lack of commitment towards those themes and ends up having a very surface level approach to them.

It almost feels like it's a story written by someone you just asked what they thought having suicidal depression or mental health issues as a whole feels like, without truly understand what it means. While at the same time, parading the Silent Hill brand to try and get people interested, without giving it a meaningful use.

You know what? I don't hate it, but it is kinda stinky. If we really are of the belief that games are an art form, then games should be attempting to tackle tough subject matter when it's in an appropriate setting. Passive medium is just unable to create the same level of uncomfiness that the more active role a player takes in a video game ever could, in my personal opinion. However, the execution needs to be done well. I think this game falters a good portion of it's ideas, but there were bits that I found to be quite interesting buried underneath it all.

Had the game focused more on the 2nd half where the environmental storytelling in the apartment was front in center, I think it would have faired a lot better. They could have easily still made an entire Silent Hill mental unrest and anguish fun time run around scary monster game with the huge overflowing baggage of shit built into that part of the game without the bullying arc. I can't really talk about the latter half section without the use of a spoiler tag, but it was fairly unsettling way to convey neglect and the negative feelings surrounding it without hitting you in the face with a car. Had it been fleshed out a lot more and not rushed to oblivion, it would have been more effective. Part of it may have been uneasiness by seeing an environment like this in real life, maybe it hit a little close to home for me. But, it really seemed like they played around a lot more in this segment and it came across a lot better in my eyes. It is however, the shortest segment, which kind of sucks.

As others have pointed out, the bullying aspect of the game is quite too literal, too surface level, too on the nose. These are important themes to talk about, but it's done in such a ham-fisted way that it comes across as goofy at times, with some unstellar voice acting to add onto it. It has nothing really to do with how cringe the teenagers are in this game, because teenagers are indeed cringe. And if you say that you weren't cringe as a teenager, you're just lying, man. Just because kids today call each other Ohio as an insult, doesn't mean we weren't gallivanting around in our own emo tumblr phases worshiping Let's Play Youtubers who are still working and streaming this game as we speak. Social media and how it can affect someone with a need for validation is a very real issue that definitely still affects adults, but it's an issue that has been fumbled so many times in other media already, in the same traps that this game falls into. It's personally more than just receiving mean comments in a Xitter reply and could have been much more explored as to why It affects Anita specifically. Instead, they just used the most generic insults ever and skirt over the issue almost entirely to get to the better stuff, where you're meant to just jam Anita's isolated feelings into her trauma together like putting a hot dog into a sandwich bun. I have played cute indie games that were able to convey these messages about isolation and communication in a much better, more subtle way. It's obvious to see what they were going for and the ending is okay for what it is, but it's basically just a smiley face platitude. The game just can't get more than a box cake version of the "You Tried" cake from me.

It plays mostly fine, but chugs in some areas where the walls around you are morphing into scary game goop, which is unfortunate as I'm sure it would look neat had it worked properly. The monster is fairly cool, but the monster is also the bane of my existence. The last chase scene might as well have had Benny Hill music playing over it for the same effect, since it's so hard to navigate and the whole segment has to be redone if you die. It loses the scariness of it quite quickly and becomes a nuisance instead. While I was sighing in frustration, Anita was having a full on asthma attack the entire time until I muted the dialogue and lived in peace and tranquility for the rest of the section.

I feel like if this was a game I paid for, I would be a lot harsher for sure, but it is free and extremely short so it's not like it super wasted my time. Now please like this review, it would make me very sad if you did not do so.