Many things were great. Played great. Loved the grappling hook. Loved the really satisfying thunk when you down an enemy.
Overall story wise it felt like an expansion pack. Nothing epic and even though people hate Halo 5 the story there was better and it was just disappointing that is wasn't really continued just referred to.
Spoiler!
Cortana being killed off screen was also disappointing.
This is the kind of campaign a multiplayer first game throws players as a box to tick. Expected a lot more here.
Something also felt off in the combat where you just get spammed with enemies or you have 4 brutes running at you and running through each other. All the enemies can move 2 or 3 times faster than you can. Even when you're using the grappling hook to boost. They're right behind you. Maybe Doom has spoiled me cause crap he's slow. You can't hide, you can't take a tactical position. They're always on top of you.
Reviews talk about how they nailed the 30 sec combat loop but they don't mention the 10sec death loop. So often it seems like instant death from enemies that take a lot more for you to kill them than for them to kill you. Good thing load times are near instant. You just live die repeat until you get it right, and this was on normal!
So it's a disappointing great game and I would have preferred a direct sequel to Halo 5.
Last edited by Mavy on 15 Dec 2021 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Had to read over what I wrote since I didn't think I'd written anything specific.
Yeah mild spoiler. Not really a major one. It's said as an off hand comment at the start of the game which is one of the things I didn't like about how the story was handled.
Halo Infinite
In line with all Halo games, the story and characters are absolute trash. Pilot was terrible.
The combat itself is very fun and enjoyable, and a few of the battles were really spectacular and epic.
I didn't like the occasional unfair 1 or 2 hit boss.
They did what they needed to do. Land a competent, fun single player campaign and solid multi-player.
As far as shooters go, it's nice to see Halo back at the top as it's one of the few shooter games that I enjoy, along with Doom2016 and the occasional COD.
When this came out I thought it looked clunky and dated. Having spent close to 90 hours with it I can't say I was wrong. HOWEVER, Elex executes a lot of elements in ways that are superior to many triple A open-world RPGs I've played, so much so I easily overlooked the conspicuously clunky movement and combat. Developer Piranha Bytes said Elex is a 'hand-crafted' RPG experience. It read like fluff to me when I first saw it but having spent time with the game and reading up on its development I now understand this small team numbering 30-something staff crafted the entire open world, its paths, elevations, structures, loot placement, etc. The best thing about Elex is traversing/exploring the open world. Like the Witcher series Elex has you playing a pre set character. No character creation here. Early in the game protagonist Jax gets a jet pack which provides for short bursts of thrust. With it you can fly up to areas otherwise inaccessible, or jump off cliffs and land softly. I haven't had one in a game before and it makes open-world exploration more interesting and fun. The jet pack can be employed during combat as well. The hybrid sci-fi/medieval world is interesting and well executed. I remember walking around a forest area wearing leather armour, fighting mutant animals with sword + bow and arrow when suddenly a couple of futuristic jet aircraft flew by. A cool moment.
Credit goes to the story and writing also. Most of the NPC conversations are written well and are interesting. I was taken aback in a good way by some of the voice performances. Some don't land well but the good outweighs the average. Unfortunately Jax himself is a pretty clunky performance but there is a little story context to go with that. ACG reviewed Elex and while he offered praise overall I do recall him saying the soundtrack was nothing special. I really enjoyed the soundtrack. One of my favourites among open-world RPGs where I usually turn ambient music off.
This is my first Piranha Bytes game and it's apparently a given that in PB games you start out weak as piss and can get your arse handed to you by the lowliest animal enemies early on. So it is with Elex. Progression is slow but if you manage to click with the game this slow progression ends up feeling more substantial and rewarding once you're strong. Each upgrade you earn feels meaningul. It remains an unforgiving game throughout however. You'll need to manage close quarters vs ranged esp when engaging multiple enemies. The hybrid setting extends to weapons and include swords, axes, crossbows, plasma rifles, laser rifles, rocket/grenade launchers, shotguns and others. You have a roster of companion NPCs and can choose one to accompany you in the field. Their combat and mob-attracting abilities are welcome help. Another thing Elex does well is leave you to discover (or not discover) meaningful places or interactions. You're not lead around by waypoints in this game. More than once you'll find yourself inadvertantly completing quests you weren't directed to. It adds a lot of spontaneity to exploration and simply makes it more fun to go off the main quest line and see what's out there.
Visuals. Nothing to write home about but it does a few things really well, namely weather effects like snow and rain, global illumination/occlusion, vegetation and wind. Rock textures are terrible. Water falls looks terrible. As you've gathered by now the game clicked with me so I found it super-immersive overall.
Elex is the epitome of Eurojank but I now get why PB have their loyal fanbase. The open world, story, story pacing, exploration and how you interact is top notch and feels fresh/original vs other games of this type. The final boss battle... meh, however the story ending itself is good. Always nice to see the end to a long game take plenty of time to wrap up its convoluted plot vs being rushed. I loved it. Elex 2 coming out in March '22.
Gameplay: 8/10. Way too many bullet sponge enemies, and I don't like the way they removed the best way for skilled players to kill Hunters. Not being able to replay missions is shit.
Story: 0/10. 343 really needs to hire a decent writer. I was never given a reason as to why I was fighting, and then game ended right at the point where the Bungie games would have started throwing Flood at you.
The sky calls to us; if we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars
I'm up to chapter 12, think there are about 4 left. Overall enjoying the entire experience however sometimes feel it leans a bit too heavily into Farcry territory with the overworld. The story eludes to a bunch of beats I have no knowledge of - suspect I'd have to play Halo Wars to figure it out. It definitely feels more akin to the first game but it is missing the supporting characters that game had - like Johnson, Keyes and even Cortana. It's a positive return to form but I think it needs a few story DLCs to flesh out the new world. Definitely a solid 8/10.
It's the best of the 343 Games but it definitely lacks the heart of the earlier Bungie games. Sad, because Bungie is a husk of what it once was in the day. I don't think either studio has the raw talent to spit out another OG Halo trilogy.
Strange Brigade (PS4 playing on PS5). Really enjoyable 3rd person shooter from the people who gave us the Zombie Army games. If you've played those you've played this, but the 1930's backdrop/aesthetic was so good! Game looks fantastic as well. Really enjoyed it and, as it is only about $12 at the moment for the game and season pass on PSN it is easily worth the purchase. 8/10.
Forza Horizon 5 (Series X). My fav racing game series and this is probably the best of the 5 games. Looks simply stunning and they have nailed the gameplay. If you liked the previous 4 then you'll love this. Mexico is gorgeous as well... 9/10.
Halo Infinite - enjoyed single player but the story was a bit all over the shop and I'm assuming set up for more dlc episodic content. Multiplayer is great though but needs more maps.
8/10
Medieval remake - loved this. Never played the original and this was a great hack and slash, really well done remake the only downer was sometimes a dodgy camera but for 12 bucks or whatever it cost (probably can be found for under ten) it's sweet. It's been so long since I played a game like this as well so not having any fatigue from the genre helps.
Peppermint Lounge wrote: ↑30 Dec 2021 08:06 pm
Strange Brigade also on my list. Always like the '30s presentation. How long is the game, Vince?
Without looking for all the secrets in each level, playing on medium settings, took me roughly 7-8 hours to complete. Going through to find all the hidden items (and some are HARD to find) could take upwards of 20-30 hours i'd imagine.
One of my favourite games of all time and one of the few single player games I'll replay from time to time. Perfect cinematic single player game. Movie quality story, performances & some of the best TPS gameplay ever. Would love to see the Max Payne games remastered or given the Resident Evil remake treatment.
Had only played Asylum. Loved that so City on the back catalogue for years. Unsurprisingly I loved City too. A worthy and superior sequel enhanced further by the amount of goth and darkness soaking the game world. Perfect visuals that still look gorgeous in ‘22. Such a pleasure to rip around as Batman (& Catwoman). Will proceed with Origins and Arkham Knight after hanging out a little more in City to finish side quests and try the DLC.
Nioh 2 - Just like fucking never again. I was OK with it, then it outstayed it's welcome, then I realised everything was levelling with me so it felt like it was absolutely a waste of time bothering levelling up in this game. I'd go from killing a huge boss to being one shot killed by the weakest human at the start of the next level, it's like levelling had no effect on anything. Fucking bring me back some Dark Souls where you're rewarded. I was doing every side mission etc and well infront of the recommended levels and still just getting browned by the first dudes I cam across, no amount of equipment and shit mattered. I get people want a challenge but it's pretty fucking cheap, never again.
So I'm conflicted, it's a good game with a shithouse reward. I got to the point I had to finish it as I'd been at it so long and thought I was close but each time I was close I actually wasn't it just kept going with more bullshit level bosses and then henchmen who are magically stronger than the last boss yo u just had to level 7 times to beat.
5/10 - you either like games implemented with this shit for the challenge or you go nuclear after a while like I did at the complete bullshit of it.
Had only played Asylum. Loved that so City on the back catalogue for years. Unsurprisingly I loved City too. A worthy and superior sequel enhanced further by the amount of goth and darkness soaking the game world. Perfect visuals that still look gorgeous in ‘22. Such a pleasure to rip around as Batman (& Catwoman). Will proceed with Origins and Arkham Knight after hanging out a little more in City to finish side quests and try the DLC.
9/10.
Buckle up. IMO Arkham Knight is the best in the series. Looks and runs like a million bucks on PC these days too
Couldn't get into Knight, was over the Batmobile within the first 20mins so uninstalled it. Asylum I bought last year for Xbox but it's not BC so no dice.
selfish wrote:Being a massive fanboy and trying to hide it is Lestat's worst bottleneck.
It Takes Two - Hazelight - PS4 physical purchase to download PS5 version.
Ahhh massive post.
Option 1. In each of the hidden sections is a single TLDR paragraph.
Option 2. Just skip down to anything near the end and gloss. You'll get the gist.
Option 3. Read the whole thing.
Option 4. Avoid completely! Wtf is this wall of text ffs.
Sorry this isn't a better read. I'm out of steam. Let's not be pretending this isn't a massive ramble.
Also spoilers. Avoid the story sections if you care.
It Takes Two is a mandatory co-op action platformer, played split screen regardless of whether you're online or on a couch. Here's the shortest trailer I could find:
Oh so it's like that other forced co-op game we saw...
Yes it is; it's by the same guys as A Way Out. I wrote too much about A Way Out here. (And have to say: I severely under-scored that game.)
The premise for It Takes Two sees a married couple moving forward with their pending divorce. Their daughter Rose, however, unknowningly turns her parents into toy dolls because sadness is magic. Now in immortal doll form, Cody and May have to find their way back to reality while simultaneously fending off the unwanted interruptions of a talking, dancing, and determinedly positive relationship advice book. Who happens to be Mexican.
So you're here for those 2 things: to enjoy the co-op platforming, and to see how the story of their ending relationship unfolds. Hazelight have already proven themselves with co-op gaming, and I knew the story wouldn't just be a cliché of solving divorce through the power of love and sparkles, so I was interested in both the play and the story angle.
And one last thing before I get into it: I had high expectations going in. Another forced co-op by Hazelight is almost an immediate buy for me, plus this time around the game was also showing a tonne of polish; probably A Way Out's weakest area. Adding to the expectations, every brief comment I read about ITT was very high praise. Hell, go to EA's store page and the lowest score they've plastered up there is 9/10.
So... pretty high hopes going in!
Oh and I'm going to compare this to A Way Out a lot, which will probably make this a terrible read.
I was disappointed early on, because what with all those high expectations I had going, I was expecting the game to rise above simply "platforming with co-op bits". I found myself thinking about how any platform game can throw in mandatory co-op sections, and was expecting that this game would work it into something more special, as A Way Out had done.
But from the early stages it appeared to really just be comfortable with this fairly conventional approach. Lots of variety, admittedly, but still not moving past the feeling of just a platform game.
This came with another downer: Being decidely in the platform genre, player skill was more demanding than the rather vague gameplay & control of A Way Out. It Takes Two is actually pretty softcore in the gaming skill requirements, but it's still demanding at times for someone who isn't used to it. This dampened the early experience for my gaming buddy, since they had to worry about dying more than they were able to just enjoy the co-op play. The issue improved as things progressed, but ultimately still hung around to some extent for most of the game. A Way Out just didn't have this problem, since the core play of A Way Out doesn't really demand skill at all.
Oh and the minigames are solid. They're all presented well, simple, fun enough. But again player skill balance pretty much made these all pointless for our game. My partner couldn't compete, so we didn't have fun with them, and this skill issue difference between ITT and AWO was just driven home further.
TLDR: Early impressions were that it felt too much like a platformer, and the inherent skill demands of a platformer degraded the co-op experience.
It does look really nice in 4K, largely due to how well the 2 main character models are done. The game is indeed really polished, and Cody & May look, act, and sound great. Oh and the animation! So much excellent animation. So, so many clever touches and funny actions. Loved it.
The feeling I described above hung around for some time, to be honest. Then suddenly, the game does a bit of a The Last of Us II and says "Ok now here's the other half of the game just when you were thinking we'd about wrap it up."
The game changes up a gear, the levels start getting really cool, cute, or spectacular, and the whole game just takes a surprisingly clear turn into maximum effort. Things get fantastical and entertainment starts to arrive in the form of amazement at the sheer creativity, the crazy environments, and some really playful and out-there gimmicks... all in the 2nd half of the game. The 1st half did have its moments too, but the 2nd half seriously turns it up.
I remember one level had me suddenly feeling like this game's world was wasted on a co-op title. Another level jumped out as belonging in a Sonic game, except it was actually fun and very cool. We were throwing snowballs at AI and they would throw them back. There were these awesome mechanical birds you could control. There's a Terminator 2 reference. There are lots and lots and looooots of fun different mechanics to try. The dinosaur toys are pokey, but so cute. The game really excels in this way, which is to say, in so so many different little ways that are all unbelievably consistent and polished.
So ok, things were getting good, and I found myself thinking "Is this it? Is this what got everyone's praise? Because if it keeps up with this and the story turns into something dramatic, I could get it. It feels close."
TLDR: The levels were getting so impressive, and the creativity so abundant, that I felt like I was on the edge of tipping into understandiing why everyone says the game is so great. All I needed was for the story to carry it home... and I would be sold.
So how was the story going by this point, later in the game?
... *squints*... weirdly. It was going weirdly. We were both still hooked; far into the game we were still both wondering what's going to happen, especially due to a rather amusing curve ball that had been thrown into the mix: Cody and May did not give a s*** about their daughter. This was interesting stuff. The characters themselves hadn't yet acknowledged it, but the game was being straight up explicit, for a long time. Toys were demanding the parents don't do what they were planning. The story telling tone of one particular boss was hilariously wooden in just how much Cody and May failed to acknowledge not only the meaning for their daughter, but the meaning for the deliberately cutest character in the game.
Ooh, this was getting good. This is what I was here for. But it was also being such a cocktease.
TLDR: The game spent a long time dangling unknown story potential in front of your face, with almost zero actual development. We were hooked on the pending reveal, not the ongoing development.
And while there definitely is development in the Cody-May relationship as the 2nd half of the game takes over, it is both heavy-handed and light at the same time. Heavy, because it's front and centre, structuring the game itself. Light, because it's still that dangling reveal; that wooden facade that had myself and my gaming buddy sitting here like "Yeah, yeah ok we know this is going through the motions, this is gonna pop and we have no idea what that pop is gonna be, it'll be great!!"
In terms of play, the end impression was as described in the previous section, and then some. The sheer scope of the creativity, conceptual and visual, is really impressive stuff. What a huge project this game is. I asked Google and learnt that the time between A Way Out and It Takes Two is 3.5 years. You hear that, and you see the 2 games, and you think "How is this possible?"
Sure, Hazelight showed that they've mastered the craft of co-op gaming, but A Way Out was creatively lacklustre in comparison. Its drab environments weren't a patch... not a patch... on the creative visuals and scope and polish of It Takes Two. Not remotely in the same league. So how on earth did they go from that, to this, in under 4 years? Where did all this massive scope and risk have time to grow? Wtf.
I admit, I don't know anything else about Hazelight so perhaps they had already served up some impressive products. I'm too lazy to look into it.
The point is that the difference in scope, creativity, and technical polish between the two games is mind blowing, and the creativity of It Takes Two itself gets stupid impressive.
TLDR: As the game's 2nd half unfolds, it produces entertainment value by sheer force of excellently produced, constantly completely changing content. It keeps you going not with grinding character powers or finessing core mechanics, but with a torrent of new crazy environments to cover and ways to cover them. It's that torrent that pleases.
There's a handful of games that have left me in a stunned silence. Detroit did this a lot, in a great way, every time. Amazing.
It Takes Two left me in a stunned silence for a long time, and not in a good way.
The story is awful. And just to be clear, I wasn't stunned because the story did something stunning, for better or for worse. I was stunned because it didn't. We both were. Our final, concluding impression as the game ended was obvious and heavy in the air; nothing needed to be said. And that impression was "Wtf? Is that really all you're going to do?"
So let's take a flashback into this very post you're reading. Memory lane time.
I knew the story wouldn't just be a cliché of solving divorce through the power of love and sparkles, so I was interested in both the play and the story angle.
Cody and May did not give a s*** about their daughter. This was interesting stuff. The characters themselves hadn't yet acknowledged it, but the game was being straight up explicit, for a long time.
We were hooked on the pending reveal
"Yeah, yeah ok we know this is going through the motions, this is gonna pop and we have no idea what that pop is gonna be, it'll be great!!"
... It Takes Two doesn't do it. It doesn't do anything.
We spent the whole game waiting for, and assuming there would be, the turn. The point where the writers go "Yeah, we weren't gonna just solve a topic as solid as divorce with Disney love. We know that you know that all this therapy talk is just pretense for the real narrative riding beneath it all. Well get ready for the real food for thought, dinner is served!"
... No, that point doesn't exist.
It Takes Two holds out on story development for so long, and cockteases with wtf-blatant shunning of Rose (the daughter), like expliclity-explicit. But it's not holding out because of the big reveal... it's holding out because there isn't one. There isn't anything! The game starts, this therapy book appears and says Yo let's do therapy, and they go through the levels that the book tells them to and they kiss at the end and everything is fixed. The end, get lost.
We could not believe it didn't actually have a story except the lamest, basic-est, excuse for a story that was so boring we completely assumed it was the facade for something real. I still can't believe that it was actually delivering (super, super slowly since there was practically nothing to build) the one simple story the whole time.
And wtf was the Rose stuff!? Nothing! How is that even possible? It's not even because the Rose stuff is actually serious. While it is a real point of interest in the game's events, and there is very real weight on the meaning of their 100% lack of consideration of Rose, it's not even that weight that makes its dismissal hard to comprehend. It's the fact that the game blatantly presents it, multiple times, with multiple characters, with dialog about specifically this... and yet... the game finishes still like it never existed.
How does a game with such incredible technical and creative scope run a story that's had 0.5% as much attention? It's literally an anti-story. Was there 1 writer that worked for free for 1 week? I just...
Ughhh.
TLDR: We sat there, stunned, unable to believe that we'd been through so much, and the game had rocked so much quality and potential and expense... but an entire one of the game's two hooks was a complete nothing.
And in case you haven't noticed, that disappointment destroyed every other impression the game had formed. I knew I had really started to get impressed in the later levels. I could remember that rationally, but I could no longer care. The allure of a meaty plot with something fresh was false. I still can't believe someone said yes to a plot where divorced parents save the relationship by falling in love again.
And don't get me wrong, that's not the worst plot in the world, but ITT didn't work even that either. It didn't play it up, didn't celebrate or pull at emotions in either direction. It only went through the exact motions it said it would go through, and for the entire game the main characters themselves -- not just the player, but also the actual characters -- are directly saying "God, ok whatever, let's just get on with it." It is as go-through-the-motions-ey as it can be, with very, very little acknowledgement of actual development near the very end. Then suddenly they're apparently in love with literallynoemotionalbuildupwtf.
*huffs*
In A Way Out, you are intrigued by the story's development, then surprised by the sudden turn at the end.
In It Takes Two, you are intrigued by the story's complete absence of development, then surprised by the sudden complete nothing at the end.
________________________________________________
I wanted to share that journey I went on, so I did.
So far, I've basically written:
Platforming was a bit stale.
The greater demand on reflex skill (compared to A Way Out) degraded co-op play for mismatched players.
The flood of creative content as the game went on really started to overcome those problems.
The story was awful.
But there are a few other really big things that A Way Out got right, and It Takes Two got wrong:
No camera play
A way out does a lot of cool things with the split in the screen, sometimes even dividing things into 3 viewports, and sometimes having one single camera fly dramatically from character to character in the coolest delivery of interactive events I've seen in a game. That was hype. It Takes Two only uses the viewports for functionality. All their potential for exciting the player is completely dropped.
Drop-in infinite lives
In A Way Out, if you die, you both die. The scene must be restarted. This definitely interrupts flow, and honestly I can understand this not being viable for the platforming genre, but the difference in how it feels to play is still undeniable. Everything in A Way Out matters, and since the difficulty is balanced well, this makes the play really engaging. It Takes Two can't do this, so a death means a near-instant respawn to the same position while your buddy isn't affected at all. Very soon after starting you just stop caring. You don't care if you die, or if your buddy dies. It never matters. As a result, the thrill that A Way Out thrives on can't even exist in It Takes Two.
Rare moments of really depending on each other
This sounds like a bit of an odd complaint, since you frequently can't continue without your buddy helping. But what I mean is that A Way Out constantly provides the feeling of needing your partner to not let you down, and vice versa. It heavily emphasises how much you two need each other to survive, and that feeling shapes the play a lot. Things frequently feel exciting in A Way Out. Meanwhile It Takes Two provides this same feeling very rarely; typically only with bosses. You don't get that interdependent feeling and rush, you usually don't need your teammate to survive, and so the overall feeling that A Way Out nurtures, once again, is pretty much completely dropped in It Takes Two.
Well I think I've about burnt myself out writing this.
There is actually a lot of good in It Takes Two. I'll admit it's a solid game, and the content is really great. The voice acting is excellent (oh, except Rose. Like wow.), the animation is excellent, the models, the worlds, the talking book is actually a great character, and overall it's just a real feat of amazing and fun-looking creativity. I could write about 20 or more really nice or cool things the game does; it is crammed full of "wow that's really nice" moments that deserve some attention to be honest, but I'm tired of writing.
Wtf, I didn't know you could make snow angels!
So it's hard to look at It Takes Two, and to notice the crazy effort that's gone into it, and imagine that this isn't a 9/10 or even an 8/10 game. That feels like it doesn't make sense because the production here is just amazing. It just obliterates A Way Out in this regard. But the ball is dropped on the actual great fun of co-op play after you've experiened better, and the story is just so bad, and those 2 things are the 2 things that matter.
It Takes Two is "very good", and is by far the better product. But A Way Out, for all its drab brown environments and noticeable lack of polish, is by far the better game.
And probably cost a tenth of the budget.
Last edited by Deef on 02 Oct 2023 06:39 am, edited 3 times in total.
Ambrose Burnside wrote: ↑30 Jan 2022 10:08 am
Yeah, the only way to play Asylum or City on Xbox One or Series S/X is with the HD remake. Funnily enough, Origins is BC though.
Or if you have a PC, they released the entire trilogy + the Lego Batman trilogy for free in one crazy hit on the Epic Store a while back.
Only one missing? Origins
Ahhhh so that's what return to Arkham is. I'll keep an eye out, thanks.
selfish wrote:Being a massive fanboy and trying to hide it is Lestat's worst bottleneck.
Thanks for the review effort, Deef. Mandatory co-op makes it a tough ask for an old dad like me. Interesting to see it top a lot of 2021 best game lists.
Ta. Bit of an embarrassing post but eh. It's an interesting game to think about.
If you were considering some mandatory co-op play, I'd say go for A Way Out first (obviously, considering the above rant). For reasons:
Less time
Less money
It's more about the co-op play itself
It's more accommodating to player skill disparities. Any very casual buddy you find would be able to enjoy it without feeling like they're dragging you down.
ITT is a bigger commitment that's less of a sure thing; you'd need someone that's definitely into it, which includes them being comfortable with platforming challenges play.
Now that you've made me think about it, the way replay-appeal works in a mandatory co-op game is another thing that asserts how ITT is getting something wrong, that AWO got right.
TLDR: Considering the desire to replay some of the game highlights further that ITT isn't great at being a co-op game; it's great at distracting you from the fact that it isn't. The end, you can skip the rest, reader.
There's that natural downside to any forced co-op game where if only one player desires some sporadic replaying, they simply can't satisfy that desire. One thing my other player said just after we finished was "It's good, but wouldn't play it again". So I genuinely can't go back to check out the impressive worlds, ever again really. Faking it with 2 controllers takes too long to get anywhere open; I've tried.
So the thing that is highlighted from a perspective of replaying is that with AWO, you wouldn't even consider faking it with 2 controllers. There would be no point.
But with ITT there is a point because, as mentioned somewhere in that wall of text, some of ITT's worlds were so appealing that things felt wasted on a co-op game. I want to fake it with 2 controllers because I don't actually care at all about replaying the co-op part of things; in fact that hadn't even crossed my mind. I just want to revisit the content itself. I had already mentioned that ITT appeals with content more than actual co-op play, but now that I'm taking the replaying perspective, the point is just driven home further.
(I've just spent a few minutes reflecting and I can only recall 2 places where the co-op play itself actually got us going. There might have been more places, I just can't recall more.)
Whereas in AWO, if you feel desire to replay, it's because you want to have that co-op fun again. It's exactly the other way around; I can't think of anything in AWO that I want to replay without someone to play it with.
So it' s just another example of AWO getting something right that ITT didn't. You could even say that AWO's lack of polish is a demonstration of focus being on the right things. The co-op play has to be the draw, it has to actually be fun, since AWO can't wow the player with shinies like ITT does.
So mmm, I am not surprised at all that ITT makes many best-of lists, and I know that my impression of the game leans far more negative than most, but I do think that this is a solid case of seducing positive impressions with production more than the actual play.
And I know that there is, at the very least, one other person like me since my gaming buddy had exactly the same reaction. ITT is fairly ho-hum to play, and a surprisingly poor story, but its amazing production and amazing variety distracts from it.
Good thing too about A Way Out is that it's free on Gamepass too, I'd love be to play it with someone. I did buy it on PS4 when it released but my co-op partner went awol so never finished it. If anyone is keen to play it on Xbox, hit me up.
selfish wrote:Being a massive fanboy and trying to hide it is Lestat's worst bottleneck.
Mandatory co-op makes it a tough ask for an old dad like me. Interesting to see it top a lot of 2021 best game lists.