Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a good game. But I’m not sure it deserves all the hype it got last year.
It does some very clever stuff in terms of gameplay, with each character having their own unique battle system that synergise with the others.
And yes, the soundtrack is incredible.
In terms of the story, whilst it was interesting, the way the game drip-feeds you knowledge in the first two acts quickly became frustrating. There were multiple cutscenes where characters speak in such a vague, superficially poetic way. In reality it just felt pretentious.
Major story spoilers:
spoiler
The overall metaphor for grief is unique. I liked the concept of the characters being creations in this painting, and how that layer of reality feeds into the one you begin the game in. But it felt like everything was revealed all at once in Act 3. The game gives you very little up to that point, so it’s hard to emphasize with many of the characters. Perhaps replaying the game knowing what you know changes the perspective of it, but for a new player I’m not sure it’s the best way to tell a story.
Perhaps this is an unpopular opinion but I found the game aesthetically quite ugly. Many landscapes had a feeling of copy pasted Unreal assets that looked so same-y at points they became confusing to navigate (especially given the lack of a mini-map). The characters had these blank, uncanny stares half the time and the designs for some of them (Esquie in particular) just didn’t look good to me.
Oh and I’m really not sure why the devs decided to add entirely unnecessary platforming elements!
I found certain enemy attacks to be inconsistent and not well telegraphed, leading to some frustrating encounters were you had to memorise the parry timings rather than learn them from a valid cue.
I think the game deserves good reviews, but I’m not quite sure how it won so many GOTY awards. Perhaps it just wasn’t the game for me.
I haven’t played it but I can tell it’s not for me. I’ve seen many games in the last decade come out that seem to be a part of what I call a “fantasy island”.
It’s hard for me to describe, but I know it when I see it. In general, most of these story-heavy massive award-winning RPGs are relying on the player already liking the aesthetic and gameplay style. And if you’re not already a big fan of this style of game, they will do little to try and set it apart from the others.
None of the trailers or gameplay I’ve seen is there to convince someone to play it. They just expect that you’re already into this genre and you know if you’ll like it. It isn’t just E33, it’s all the games that fit on my fantasy island metaphor.
And it’s not just JRPGs and not just fantasy specifically, but just this category of games that “all the gamers” are playing that are “the best game ever” based on awards assume you already have the rest of the genre to compare to.
On its own as a standalone game without knowing about JRPGs, it does nothing to bring in other types of players. And thus, I have yet to try a single game from fantasy island.
Would you be able to give some examples of what you mean?
I often forget about them as soon as they release. Part of it also is that they usually fall off the map after the first year of being popular and then are never brought up again. That’s why I commented here is because I was surprised to see someone still talking about this game.
The most recent other examples I can think of are Pragmata, Where Winds Meet and Crimson Desert. I’m not even saying I think these games are bad, just poorly marketed to anyone other than the existing audience for them.
I can’t say I’ve heard of Where Winds Meet or Crimson Desert (Pragmata however, I’ve heard is very good and I’d like to give it a go). E33 feels somewhat different in that it has achieved mainstream success, and I disagree that it has been forgotten about already.
Is it perhaps that those games in particular have this kind of modern generic/bland 3D visual style? So many modern games (usually AAA) look same-y to me nowadays.