[Game Review] The Top Ten Games I Didn't Finish In 2020

 

As with any year, there were a ton of games I started but stopped.  There's many reasons why, but one of the rules I have for this blog is that in order to write a review on something, I have to finish it (with few exceptions here and there).  Unfortunately, this leaves a lot of games I want to talk about, but simply can't in the right conscious.  I wanted to write one of these last year, but couldn't bring myself to do it, in part because these intros always feel so canned and insincere.  This year is not really an exception in that regard, but with the pandemic and a 6-month lay off earlier in this year, there are plenty of games I'd love to talk about but don't necessarily see myself finishing anytime soon.  It isn't that I don't want to finish the games below - quite a few of them I am still playing on occasion - it is that, for posterity's sake, I'd like to run through them, what I liked or didn't like, and why I didn't manage to finish them this year.  I want to remember, and finished or no there is still a lot to say.  The games below are not in any particular order, but they are the top ten unfinished games that left the most impression on me, good or bad.  

 

 

Final Fantasy VII REMAKE

The long awaited remake to one of gaming's most cherished entries was finally released this year, and mostly to a mixed reception.  People generally liked the game, some loved it, and plenty of people didn't like it much at all.  Final Fantasy VII REMAKE is a frustrating game.  It takes place over the first third or so of the original, elaborating on roughly 10 hours of gameplay into a 40 hour RPG.  With that comes a lot of filler.  REMAKE had a lot of things I really liked - voice acting, great graphics, a revamped and far more fun combat system, a greater focus on the parts of the plot that felt a little quickly run over in the original - but it still stands as a stretched game.  Too often the game sends you to a place full of time-waisting side quests or long, unnecessary hallways full of enemies to stretch out its playtime.  The changes to the original game's plot, as well, allude to something potentially interesting, but somewhat muddled in this entry.  A lot of discourse about this game is about the ending, something I've gleaned a lot about but do not know outright, so a review is simply unacceptable.  That said, I have difficulty convincing myself to return to a pretty, fun, but bloated game that amounts to 1/3 of an experience I've already had.  I'm in the middle on this one. 

 

 

Infinifactory

  

Zachtronics' followup (in a sense) to his cult classic Infiniminer, Infinifactory has you placing blocks a la Minecraft in order to build a conveyor belt system that constructs odd looking mechanical parts.  Some of you may be grinding your teeth at that description, as Minecraft was heavily influenced by Infiniminer.  True, Infinifactory is not a rip-off of some Minecraft mod, but neither is Zachtronics simply returning to an obviously profitable design.  Infinifactory is simultaneously simple and complex, allowing for some real creativity in how you get these components to lock in with one another to answer the puzzle's riddle.  Infinifactory is a blast, and is probably the most palatable of Zachtronics' infamously esoteric puzzle games.  Just about anyone can get into Infinifactory if they give it some time, and the block-placing mechanics make it the most immediately fun of all of his games.  Infinifactory is a game I will finish in the future, a game I loved my time with, but life happens (and friends), and I didn't have much time to invest in its mechanical brilliance, choosing instead to play The Forest with a friend.  Expect a review on this game in the future sometime, whenever I finally return to it. 

 

 

Devil May Cry

I will be eternally frustrated I didn't stick with Devil May Cry until the day comes when I finish it.  Truth is, I tried Devil May Cry three times, and each time I couldn't stick with it past the first handful of levels.  I tried on PS2 twice, and once (the farthest I ever got) on PC.  There were several things that got in my way, but one in particular made playing and learning the game a chore.  The yellow stone system, where spawning from a checkpoint uses up an item (otherwise forcing you to start the level all over again) was beyond frustrating for a player trying to learn.  Granted, the game is rather short, so you are meant to play this game more than once.  But when you need to spend your currency to upgrade Dante, and some of that currency is spent also stocking up on orbs to make the game more manageable for a learning player, what we get is a game that is harder for newcomers and easier for veterans.  Systematically, Devil May Cry is pretty severely flawed.  But as far as gameplay goes, Devil May Cry is an absolute blast.  Combos and quick dodges are a lot of fun, and ever since Dark Souls I have desperately wanted to get into the spectacle fighter genre, but, though Devil May Cry was the start, I can't help but feel it is not made to be your first game in the genre.  As much as I don't want to write about Bayonetta before finishing this game, it may just be the best choice.

Divinity: Original Sin II

 

Hells bells do I want to finish this game.  Across platforms, I have roughly 100 hours in Divinity: Original Sin II, but I've yet to finish it.  My first 50 hours or so never had me leave the starting "tutorial island", because I couldn't help but go back to the start, messing around with different class builds.  Original Sin II has one of the most expressive class RPG mechanics I've ever played with.  On the last playthrough I did with a friend, we managed to hybrid every class once or twice over, but managing that amount of creativity comes with a strong sense of how the internal mechanics work.  It is easy to build your characters out of being able to progress through the game.  I've yet to meet anyone who has either beat Divinity: Original Sin II or played without having to, at some point, start over.  Original Sin II is an absolutely fantastic game, but one that seems hellbent on making you really work to finish it.  I've managed to get halfway through the game, but without ample amount of time to dedicate to it for a month or so, finishing it is a veritable impossibility.  I'm not sure I will ever finish it, but contradictorily I think it might be one of the best RPGs I've ever played. 

 

 

Assassin's Creed

Before Cyberpunk 2077 came out, I was a good third through Assassin's Creed.  I may return to it one of these days, or I may just skip it in favor of the sequel, the game I've historically liked.  The first Assassin's Creed game is probably best known now for simply starting the famous Ubisoft series, paling in comparison to its followup games and feeling generally clumsy.  This isn't entirely wrong, but I was surprised playing it recently that it is a lot more fun than I remembered it being.  Sure, it is still hella repetitive, sure it has a relatively simple plot, and sure it is sincerely dated, but it still captures that core aspect of climbing shit is fun.  It is a heavily imperfect game, a game that had a lot of ideas but didn't quite develop them for whatever reason.  I'd like to look at more games in the series, as I have traditionally not liked them.  I feel a new appreciation for them now, but time will tell if that holds up far into the series. 

 

 

Europa Universalis IV

Europa Universalis IV isn't really a game you beat.  Despite over 120 hours in the game, I still don't feel qualified to talk about it.  EUIV isn't just a strategy game, as you've probably heard.  It is a history simulator, and that is key to getting what this game is about.  EUIV can be incredibly difficult to get into if you aren't used to this type of game, or you simply don't really know what it is.  EUIV has a monstrous amount of multi-hour tutorial videos, some by the Paradox Studios and some by the fandom, but even watching 100 hours of these won't properly prepare you for actually playing the thing.  The best way to learn, unfortunately, is to play with a friend who already knows how to play.  The game is little more than a map and a thousand menus, and your understanding how to play this game - not even playing the game well - is reliant on your ability to anticipate what actions you want to make, and where to find the menu for those actions.  It is a pretty specific group this game is aiming at, but if you are one of those people you may never need another game ever again (except, perhaps, one of Paradox's other grande strategy games).  I love EUIV to death, but going in depth as to what makes it great is a daunting task.  Maybe sometime in the future, but I couldn't manage that now, even as I played it a ton early into the pandemic.  If It sounds interesting however, I strongly recommend bashing your head against it for a hundred hours.  

 

 

Into The Breach

Rogue-likes are pretty much made to be on a list like this.  I hardly ever finish any of them, but I usually like them.  It has, admittedly, taken a lot of effort to filter them out of this list, but Into the Breach is the exception because, despite starting this game sometime in 2019, I still find myself firing it up and playing it for a week.  The game is dressed up as a Pacific Rim style kaiju game, but in reality it is simple tactics.  Into the Breach takes the tactics style RPG of Final Fantasy Tactics and X-Com and turns it into a rogue-like, perhaps the perfect genre for it.  It acts as a sort of "reactive chess", where the opponents moves are telegraphed ahead of time, and you have to create a response.  A time travel macguffin is wrapped within to explain away the rogue-like necessity is happening, and that does actually serve the game's immersion, but all of that would not be anything if the game weren't any good.  It is pure strategy, with randomness more or less about weighing loss in a particular situation, not necessarily to screw you out of a win through chance.  Into the Breach isn't a perfect rogue-like, but it fulfills my itch towards strategy games without the daunting task of having to play hundreds of hours in order to properly beat them.  Well, in the end I suppose it did, but that has more to do with my lack of skill than anything.  I still play this to this day, so it is likely I will beat it eventually, and can give it the proper focus it deserves. 

 

 

Xenoblade Chronicles 2

 

I still don't know what to make of Xenoblade Chronicles 2.  I got some 10 hours in before I dropped it in favor of . . . Batman: Arkham Asylum?  It is hard to remember totally when I first played this game, but I recall it being sometime before The Witcher III.  Regardless, Xenoblade Chronicles 2 is just fucking weird.  It is anime as hell (downright campy in how it plays to anime norms, such as overt sexism - a literally objectified busty woman is a main character, acting as the spirit of a sword - and embarrassing, virgin-esque references to sex), and it plays like an MMO but single player.  The game is game-y to the point of annoyance.  There were aspects I liked about the game, such as the world they built where all land is simply the back of giant monsters, but I couldn't make heads or tails of this game.  Combos could be fun at times, but it all boiled down to "button mashing" the game.  I'd like to return to the series - perhaps from the first Xenoblade game or Xenogears - but probably not for a long time.  

 

 

Her Story

Her Story was simply a game I didn't spend enough time with.  Her Story is more a database of videos than it is a game, but in simply being a collection of videos it creates the game in the player's head.  I don't know if anything external ever happens to validate your understanding of what is going on with these interview tapes, but what I saw made the story sound incredibly interesting.  It is a game I desperately want to play, but just don't know how or when to go about doing it.  It is yet another example of a game I wish I had the free time I had over the summer to really dig into.  I imagine this is an inevitable play at some point, but I cannot dedicate much time to it now, even with its short gameplay.  The concept, of delving into a library of information and piecing together what is there, is precisely the kind of game I would love.  Hopefully I will return to this one soon.  

 

 

The Room (1-3)

The Room's first three games are very different from the other games on this list because I actually beat them.  The Room is essentially those flash "open the box" or "escape the room" games, but on a touch screen device.  Played on a phone or a tablet, The Room showcases why games such as Myst could be built for the platform, if someone with the proper chops would.  The Room isn't a bad series of games, but it is often times obvious, and that can be frustrating.  There are clever puzzles here and there, but generally your go-to reaction of pinch, push, or pull (as the touch screen allows) on any given tactile surface is pretty much what you do.  Puzzles usually act in parts, firstly finding the puzzle "board" and then finding the key as to how to finish it.  But the key is almost always found on accident by simply interacting with the game the way you would expect to.  When I play a puzzle game, I generally want it to be puzzling.  As a near contradictory point, sometimes the games can be too obscure.  Many surfaces look interactible, but end up requiring a very specific way of approaching them, or not being interactive at all.  It is the modern day "pixel hunt" of past point and click games.  The Room is all concept, little follow through, but that doesn't mean they aren't fun.  They just aren't that fun.  Largely why I didn't end up reviewing them during the year was a lack of things to say.  For the most part, I've said everything in this one paragraph, making for a rather anemic write-up if this was a post on its own. The games pass the time, but aren't going to truly challenge you.

 

 

Some of these games I will likely return to (or continue playing), but for now, this is them, and I have left my record.  I really don't like writing these things, but hopefully I will appreciate it sometime later, when I'm curious as to what I played in 2020.  At the very least, I may have created a reference point for a future write up.  Until then though, I'll just keep playing.    

[Film Review] Tenet

 

You can almost see a Christopher Nolan film coming a mile away.  The way he blocks his shots, the usage of practical effects over CGI, the grand mystery of what the hell his films are even about until you've finally seen them, and, as the most recognizable part of his brand, the high-concept narrative for him to drape blockbuster shenanigans over.  Christopher Nolan is one of those few filmmakers who has managed to carve out a niche as an American Auteur With A Budget, a rare breed post-90s.  One of the things most people look forward to with his films is being able to see money actually spent on something original rather than an adaptation of one thing or another.  It is an exclusive club, one with very few if any modern directors in it.  Whenever a filmmaker like Nolan, or Tarantino, or Fincher makes a film, it tends to feel like an event.  Christopher Nolan, more so than those other two, really likes to play the ambiguity game with his film's plots.  In a way he is a lot like J.J. Abrams, preferring trailers to tease and to be an experience and for a film's plot to be a relative unknown until you have your ticket in hand.  And, much as many will probably dislike this, Nolan is a lot more like Abrams than he is Fincher.  

Christopher Nolan wants to challenge his audience to keep up with him.  He wants to propose a mechanical concept, an idea of how something works for which he has built a plot around, usually bathing you in exposition for the first half hour or so until you're swimming in so much information it can be easily misunderstood as "intelligent".  That isn't quite the slight it sounds: it isn't that Nolan's films aren't smart, it is that the way his films go about explaining themselves isn't particularly smart.

Tenet's plot has been called confusing and complicated, dense and challenging, but this is a bit seeing the forest for the trees.  Tenet plays out in a confusing, complicated way, but the plot is actually incredibly simple.  For all intents and purposes, Tenet is really just a second-rate James Bond film with a kink.  You've got a bad guy hellbent on destroying the world (with less motivation than one would find in a Bond flick), and a group of secret agents practicing espionage to thwart him and figure out his grand plan.  The trick with a Christopher Nolan film is that the plot isn't really what anyone goes to see his movies for.  The main character, called just Protagonist, is little more than a suit and the occasional witty comment.  The conflict is, ostensibly, to thwart the bad guy, but a majority of the film's running time revolves around explaining and then showing (with great flair) the mechanic Nolan really wants to sell you on.  Nolan's films are event films, they are a trick.  The Prestige was a damning film he should have never made, because it basically outs him as the magician he is.  There is a lot of slight-of-hand in Tenet, but next to zero substance.

And that isn't all bad.  After all, one can find enjoyment in a well done action film with interesting set pieces and concept, but Tenet is all concept, to a headache inducing degree.  Many will tout the complexity of this film's concept, about how intelligent you need to be to grasp it, but the truth of the matter is the concept isn't all that complicated, it is just how Nolan decided to explain it to us.  The first hour or so is a rush of scenes and quick dialogue exchanges, interlaced with explanations and exposition.

Below are mild spoilers, but I will not give away the ending.  Nolan obviously intended you to figure all of this out by watching the film, so make the decision as you see fit.

The trick to Tenet is that some objects are found to act in reverse time.  If you see a bullet on a table that has been "inverted", so long as you will drop the bullet, it should come flying off the table and into your hand.  At least, that is how it is first explained to us, confusingly.  More accurately, there is a human-made radioactive substance that can invert objects and people to move backwards in time instead of forwards.  If you were inverted, the whole world would look to be going in reverse.  If you saw someone inverted, it would look like only that person was going in reverse.  It takes about a full hour or longer before this concept has been explained to you, with Nolan preferring to drop elements of the concept out of context with lengthy suppositions from characters as to how this all works.  This element, it turns out, was sent back in time so that no one in the future could  destroy the past with it (which does not make any sense, as they can destroy the past in the past which is literally the plot of this film).  The element can be constructed into something confusingly called the Algorithm, which apparently does the actual destroying.  The Algorithm was sent to nine different locations in the past, and our antagonist is after the final piece. 

Between the quick paced scenes and the way this concept is explained to us, understanding what is going on in the first hour or so is quite a lot of work.  It is completely possible without straining yourself too hard, but it will still come with quite a lot of effort.  The effort itself isn't really the problem, it is more the inefficiency of the effort and the lack of payoff once you do understand what is going on.  There are some truly cool action scenes throughout - just about the only saving grace, really - but the plot boils down to cliche once you look at the beats of the story and not the trickery.  And that trickery is particularly frustrating, revealing its mechanical complexity in the most confusing way possible.  The first half hour is spent wondering how and why someone made bullets that go in reverse time.  There really isn't a reason for it, frankly.  There is a slight explanation that would spoil too much for my liking, something that also explains slightly why someone sent the Algorithm back in time as well.  Perhaps one day I will do a more thorough review spoiling the ending of this film, but until then suffice to say I didn't like it or its implications.  If it isn't too much of a spoiler, think "closed time loop".

Christopher Nolan has a talent for most aspects of film, but writing has never been one of them.  Sometimes he strikes the right balance between movie magic, interesting characters, and substantial plot (usually when his brother co-writes), but more often than not they are roller coaster rides designed to look intelligent rather than be intelligent.  I'd love to see Christopher Nolan direct a movie he doesn't really want to film, something not written by him but still with a talented scribe behind it.  As it is, Nolan is M. Night Shyamalan for the college bound.     

 

 

 

6.0