Really perplexing. I'm just finishing my review now. I'm very impressed with it but worrying that my score might be too high (
). I just don't understand how people who are fans of the genre can hate this. It's just such an enjoyable from beginning to end in almost all aspects.
As I detailed earlier, it just feels a bit awkward to me in all respects despite the generally high quality.
I think I would have preferred the combat go in either direction rather than trying to be everything at once. FEAR (not counting super powers) did the assault gunfighting in a much better feeling way. It was faster, snappier, more precise, had even more options, and enemy behavior was more interesting. In this, the cover fire seems to contradict the weapons and their mechanics. The lack of dodge and somewhat quick dying seems to contradict the running, sliding, and takedowns. The stops to walk around manually grabbing ammo and health packs contradicts the speed and hectic nature of how fast you can blow through them.
On a more stealth side... Do I even have to expound? We've all seen stealth better done in over a dozen games. This is certainly accessible to stealth newcomers, but it is obviously really, really holding back because it wants the freedom to go full action on a whim. However, the mere inclusion of stealth with its required circumstances (smaller handful of enemies) incentives (pain) ends up holding back the action side of things, no matter how many monster closets they open and medpacks they leave everywhere. A similar contradiction of aims is happening with the level design.
Narrative vs gameplay is another strange balance. To me, something about the shifts from mayhem playground to narrative-guided is unnatural. On the one hand, the narration allows more unique situations, and this does very well to make them unique from all other shooters, so I want to admire that. On the other hand, I feel like the gameplay design overall is tilted toward playgrounds, despite that being the lesser share of the overall experience of the game. So while I appreciate the uniqueness, I find myself wanting to really stretch my legs with the gameplay (in my mind it plays out like some Goldeneye levels), but the narrative guidance keeps coming back and cutting it off short.
Finally, as I said in my comparison to Binary Domain, the graphics are
beautiful and I can really walk around and marvel at them, but then once the action kicks up I find them being slightly annoying and not-so-functional. However, I have similar opinions on say, Battlefield 4, so I'm not sure if this is a matter of actual art vs gameplay in visual design, or if I'm just a grumpy old man who has trouble dealing with fancy colored lighting.
Anyway, because it's kind of torn, it's hard to say "this is what should change" or "this exactly is where is falls short" because whatever it is changes depending on how you want to play, or how the particular portion of the game you are in wants you to play it. However, the lack of permanent specificity of required critique does not diminish the ever-present feeling that you have played better forms of whatever you may be doing at any given time. So for me it isn't that it
fails in any particular way, but that it needed to pick a direction in order to take itself to greater heights.
I think in my effort to be fair and appreciate its good qualities, I'd land it somewhere at 7.5 or 8. I'm only halfway through, but I am pretty confident this overall nature of design won't change. I can totally see how someone with a clearer idea of what they wanted from it,
especially an old school mayhem shooter, could be very bored and focus on that boredom and failed expectations, and maybe even see in the game a failure to live up to its own ambitions as an action shooter, and say it is a 6.