very positive review for a game with zero gameplay

[Circle]

you people are mad

[patrick68794]

Nah, the ones that are crying on here constantly about people liking the game are the ones that are mad lol

[Kiryn]

I'm presuming you have a narrow definition of 'gameplay'

[Jakubi]

The game itself is nice, good looking, very nice story telling. Yet worth 20€ at best. i aint paying 50€ for 5 hours of fun

[ZunZunRun]

Life is Strange or furthermore Gone Home had shallow gameplay yet they were critically acclaimed.
Consider Hellblade as an interactive art experience using video gaming as a medium.

[VTG]

Don't complain just buy, this game graphics wow truly Unreal Engine 5. I really love this games and audio quality make me feel in cinema, you must use high end speaker and soundcard to enjoy the sound quality in this game.
The gameplay similar like Death Stranding but no open world, like Uncharted 4, I like this

[Mike]

Publicado originalmente por Zun:

Life is Strange or furthermore Gone Home had shallow gameplay yet they were critically acclaimed.
Consider Hellblade as an interactive art experience using video gaming as a medium.

Your actually right its just an virtual "art piece" USING videogames as a medium, because it is barely an actual videogame itself.

People keep gushing over the graphics and "art" yet the colors look bland/boring (nothing pops), the setting is ROCK with little to know variation, enemy/character design is bland and uninteresting, your mostly looking at a real actors face for most of the game (no art there just good mo-cap and face scans)...etc and thats it. Most of the game seems to be crawling through caves, or a rocky landscape that barely with very little distinctive features to make the exploration interesting.

A game can technically be the most beautiful looking "game" in existence but when 99% of the game world is nothing but background dressing that cannot be interacted with why call it a videogame at all and not an interactive Art piece. Why not make a new entertainment medium for it?

If people enjoy it, more power to them, but calling stuff like this "best looking video games ever" when its just an interactive Art piece is an insult to the games that look amazing AND are actual VIDEOGAMES that let the player explore the world, interact with the world,..etc The recent Lords of the fallen game is a perfect example of a videogame is amazing visuals (bad faces though), while also being an engrossing videogame for the player to enjoy.

[ZunZunRun]

Publicado originalmente por Mike:

Publicado originalmente por Zun:

Life is Strange or furthermore Gone Home had shallow gameplay yet they were critically acclaimed.
Consider Hellblade as an interactive art experience using video gaming as a medium.

Your actually right its just an virtual "art piece" USING videogames as a medium, because it is barely an actual videogame itself.

People keep gushing over the graphics and "art" yet the colors look bland/boring (nothing pops), the setting is ROCK with little to know variation, enemy/character design is bland and uninteresting, your mostly looking at a real actors face for most of the game (no art there just good mo-cap)...etc and thats it. Most of the game seems to be crawling through caves, or a rocky landscape that barely with very little distinctive features to make the exploration interesting.

A game can technically be the most beautiful looking "game" in existence but when 99% of the game world is nothing but background dressing that cannot be interacted with why call it a videogame at all and not an interactive Art piece. Why not make a new entertainment medium for it?

If people enjoy it, more power to them, but calling stuff like this "best looking video games ever" when its just an interactive Art piece is an insult to the games that look amazing AND are actual VIDEOGAMES that let the player explore the world, interact with the world,..etc The recent Lords of the fallen game is a perfect example of a videogame is amazing visuals (bad faces though), while also being an engrossing videogame for the player to enjoy.

I think you misunderstood me when I talked about art. Art isn't just about how the game looks.

Life is strange and Gone home had very mediocre visuals and yet I still consider them as beautiful art pieces. When I say it's art, it's not just about the graphics (which are still awesome in HB2), it's about the emotions the game makes you feel.

And if we consider video games as a whole as an art form, any game is just an interactive art piece. The original DOOM is also art to me.

[The Spu]

Hellblade 1 was a narrative-driven game as well. I don't understand people complaining about the gameplay. Did a bunch of people just see a pretty trailer for a sequel to a game they never played and buy the game without knowing anything about it or something? It's sad that nobody appreciates a good narrative any more. But I suppose it's their loss.

[bl_4u]

Publicado originalmente por Mike:

A game can technically be the most beautiful looking "game" in existence but when 99% of the game world is nothing but background dressing that cannot be interacted with why call it a videogame at all and not an interactive Art piece. Why not make a new entertainment medium for it?

The studio who made it aren't limiting themselves to only making 'interactive art pieces' (Ninja Theory made DMC: Devil May Cry for example), and there are no distribution platforms or consoles specifically for that kind of medium.

People would need one platform or console for their digital games, and a second platform and console for their interactive art pieces, purely because some people think that interactive art is an insult to gaming, even though they often use the same hardware, the same software and graphics engine, the same developers, and the same publishers.

[warb]

There was more game, better level design and better VA in the first game.

[Lake333GLD]

Publicado originalmente por Circle:

you people are mad

Oh, you did enable the AUTO FIGHT... Poor baby...

[Mike]

Publicado originalmente por Zun:

I think you misunderstood me when I talked about art. Art isn't just about how the game looks.

Life is strange and Gone home had very mediocre visuals and yet I still consider them as beautiful art pieces. When I say it's art, it's not just about the graphics (which are still awesome in HB2), it's about the emotions the game makes you feel.

And if we consider video games as a whole as an art form, any game is just an interactive art piece. The original DOOM is also art to me.

I never said "art" is only about visual fidelity, but for this game that is really all the "art" is, so that was the focus of my comment. There are TONS of games that are visually less impressive then this game imo have way stronger art directions, wheather its through colors, cell shading, ...etc

I also heavily disagree with with your last statement as I DON'T personally consider videogames as an "art form".

Yes every game can be "looked" at like art as that is subjective most of the time, HOWEVER the medium is videogames (interactive media) and it was NOT created to be a new "art form", it was created to allow people to interact with entertainment media in different ways.

Pac-man was not considered "Art" by the creators, they just created a game that caught peoples attention, that was fun to play and addicting and after years of popularity it is recognized as "art". The same with Classic DOOM, if you look at the creation of the game it was a bunch of dude bro, metal head, collage kids that wanted to make a metal first person shooter where you blast demons. Trying to make their game "ART" was probably the last thing on their mind when making the game.

So to wrap up my point. Any individual can can look at a game and call it "art" but what was the original design intention behind that game? Was it to be fun first? Was it to be fast paced first? Was it to be a huge explorable world first?.....etc. Hellblade 2 was clearly made to be an art piece FIRST and game second, so it should be treated as one, DOOM was made to be a GAME first and became considered "art" overtime, so these 2 are not synonymous at all.

[stuckintheinbetween]

There's room for "games" such as this. Look how many games are on Steam. If this one doesn't do anything for you, there's an endless supply of games available here. Move on.

[stuckintheinbetween]

Publicado originalmente por The Spu:

Hellblade 1 was a narrative-driven game as well. I don't understand people complaining about the gameplay. Did a bunch of people just see a pretty trailer for a sequel to a game they never played and buy the game without knowing anything about it or something? It's sad that nobody appreciates a good narrative any more. But I suppose it's their loss.

Not only was it the same style of game, I remember it getting quite a lot of praise. It definitely didn't have people cheering for its failure like this one does. That obviously has to do with Ninja Theory now being owned by Microsoft, as well as the fact that it's fashionable to bash anything Xbox related nowadays because of the brand's self-inflicted wounds.

[ZunZunRun]

Publicado originalmente por Mike:

Publicado originalmente por Zun:

I think you misunderstood me when I talked about art. Art isn't just about how the game looks.

Life is strange and Gone home had very mediocre visuals and yet I still consider them as beautiful art pieces. When I say it's art, it's not just about the graphics (which are still awesome in HB2), it's about the emotions the game makes you feel.

And if we consider video games as a whole as an art form, any game is just an interactive art piece. The original DOOM is also art to me.

I never said "art" is only about visual fidelity, but for this game that is really all the "art" is, so that was the focus of my comment. There are TONS of games that are visually less impressive then this game imo have way stronger art directions, wheather its through colors, cell shading, ...etc

I also heavily disagree with with your last statement as I DON'T personally consider videogames as an "art form".

Yes every game can be "looked" at like art as that is subjective most of the time, HOWEVER the medium is videogames (interactive media) and it was NOT created to be a new "art form", it was created to allow people to interact with entertainment media in different ways.

Pac-man was not considered "Art" by the creators, they just created a game that caught peoples attention, that was fun to play and addicting and after years of popularity it is recognized as "art". The same with Classic DOOM, if you look at the creation of the game it was a bunch of dude bro, metal head, collage kids that wanted to make a metal first person shooter where you blast demons. Trying to make their game "ART" was probably the last thing on their mind when making the game.

So to wrap up my point. Any individual can can look at a game and call it "art" but what was the original design intention behind that game? Was it to be fun first? Was it to be fast paced first? Was it to be a huge explorable world first?.....etc. Hellblade 2 was clearly made to be an art piece FIRST and game second, so it should be treated as one, DOOM was made to be a GAME first and became considered "art" overtime, so these 2 are not synonymous at all.

When you talk about color or cell shading it's still just graphics, not art.

The fact that you don't consider video games as an art form is where we disagree.

And yes I consider Pac-Man as a piece of art, because it made its users feel joy, happiness, satisfaction, frustration, failure and so on. They experienced feelings while watching at a screen. How is that different from movies or paintings? It may not have been designed as an artform, but I guess cavemen who painted in Lascaux caves didn't even have a word for "art", yet their drawings are still considered as a form of art.