Review: Pneuma: Breath of Life

Pneuma: Breath of Life is an interesting puzzler set in a beautiful but almost entirely empty world. The game explores some intriguing issues and takes an alternative approach to the classic puzzler formula, offering a mix of super simplistic and relatively complex riddles in a seemingly random order. Yet, due to smart direction and pacing, every aspect of P:BOL feels entirely deliberate and well thought-out on the part of the developers, resulting in a thoroughly enjoyable experience from start to finish.

The game begins in total darkness. The protagonist then, in accordance with the game's title, breathes life into the world around him, creating light, marble corridors, exquisite paintings, golden decorations, gardens and more. In godlike fashion, the world seems to form around Pneuma with each step he takes, so it's no surprise that our garrulous narrator initially believes himself to be a deity, creating and bending the world at his will. As the levels pass by, Pneuma begins to question the true nature his existence more deeply, culminating in something of an existential crisis in the latter stages. To say any more would be to spoil the unravelling of what I found to be one of the more fascinating narratives ever seen in this type of game, so I'll leave it there. Suffice to say that, when the game finally arrived at its intriguing conclusion, I was left in something of a ponderous state.

Some of the environments look more like a tech demo than a full-fledged game

As has seemingly become the custom in indie puzzlers ever since Portal 2 was released, the game is narrated throughout by Pneuma's quirky British voice, ably performed by a voice actor who remains unknown to me (despite online research, I was unable to find his name). As mentioned earlier, Pneuma spends most of his time discussing godliness, self-awareness, the nature of reality and a myriad of other philosophical themes over the course of the game's approximately 2 hour playtime. Yes, this isn't a long game. In fact, with a smart head on your shoulders, you could probably finish it in less than 90 minutes, with the game's rather excessive load times accounting for at least 10 of those minutes. A few secret rooms and puzzles marginally extend the game's length for completionists, but P:BOL should be regarded more as an interesting little way to spend an afternoon, rather than a long-distance puzzler to come back to time and time again.

In fact, I'd say this is definitely a game that benefits from being completed in a single session. Pneuma's gradual breakdown from pompous, self-proclaimed god to lost, lonely, doubtful soul is most effective when witnessed in a single run. Like a good short story, it's best to stay in the world of Pneuma from start to finish, rather than taking breaks and coming back to it later. It was a game that had been sitting on my Xbox One's hard drive for some time, ever since I downloaded it for free as part of the platform's Games with Gold promotion. I imagine many other players downloaded it out of habit but perhaps haven't found the time to actually load it up, and to those people I would wholeheartedly recommend giving it a try.

The game's environments and camera tricks are very easy on the eye

Gameplay-wise, Pneuma finds itself nestled snugly in the sweet spot between puzzler and "walking simulator". Few puzzles will rarely delay you for too long, which is definitely for the best, even if it contributes to the game's relatively short length. There is a bit of a random element to the difficulty, but I feel like this was intentional. Other reviewers have criticised the game for jumping around from tricky "re-arrange these coloured blocks in the right order" puzzles to "stare at this object for 20 seconds to win" elements, which can hardly even be classed in the same category, but I think this mixture of difficulties works pretty well. Too many easy puzzles in a row would make the game a breeze, too many difficult ones would make it a slog.

By mixing up the order and throwing puzzles at you in a sort of easy/hard/easy/hard pattern, the game grants you a nice sense of satisfaction and speedy progression. You might spend 5-10 minutes getting through a particularly head-scratching moment and then, as you're still catching your breath, the game is kind enough to offer you a couple of simplistic riddles to keep the story moving. Sure, there will be moments where you solve a puzzle and say "Really? That's it?" but these almost confusingly straightfroward sections are balanced out with genuine brainteasers. Puzzle games are traditionally associated with a difficulty curve that becomes steeper the further you go, and the same is generally true here, but I appreciated P:BOL's slightly unique take on the formula. Ultimately, this is a game with a nice little story to tell and the developers want players to witness that story, rather than giving up and missing out.

Always watching

The puzzles themselves mostly consist of camera manipulation. Levels feature eerie eyes that are always watching you. These eyes act in the same way levels or switches might work in a traditional puzzler, opening doors and rotating bridges in the early stages, before things get more complex in the latter levels with rotating rooms and a couple of truly tricky moments. In general though, the camera has a large part to play in most puzzles and the developers (a small team of 21-year-olds) came up with some smart ways to play with the mechanic. There were a small handful of puzzles that left me a little bamboozled, but pretty much all of them can be figured out with careful observation and logical thinking, and few ever really reach that sort of frustrating, 'trial and error' level you tend to find in many other games of this style.

It's the sort of game that lets you feel pretty good about yourself without ever really taxing your neurons too severely. And, perhaps most importantly in this age of online walkthroughs and extremely narrow attention spans, you probably won't get stuck to the point of seeking out a solution by Googling it, and I consider that to be another point in the game's favour. It's a sign that the puzzles are well thought-out and just tricky enough to give you pause for thought, without ever frustrating you too much.

All-in-all, P:BOL is a fine game and more than worth an hour or two of your time. It asks some interesting questions agency and identity, without ever getting too far into the more pretentious or complex aspects of existentialism. It has a story to tell and a message to share and it does it brilliantly, giving your brain a nice little workout along the way.

What If BioShock Was Released In 2017?

So I recently started thinking about games, which is something I do quite a lot, but specifically about the current state of the games industry. It was a video by Jim Sterling - this video, to be exact - which really got me going. In the clip, Jim discusses the current divide that exists in the industry. At one end of the spectrum, we have the big-budget AAA titles with their season passes, Limited Ultra Hyper Deluxe Editions and "We need this to sell at least 5 million copies or we're doomed" marketing philosophy, resulting in games that often resemble one another and hit the same, tired beats, and, at the other end, we have the independently-produced games that often ooze with creativity but don't have the support or budget necessary to really challenge their high-profile counterparts. Jim goes on to discuss how Hellbalde: Senua's Sacrifice has made a fine attempt of bridging the gap between those two extremes and reveals his hopes that more games will follow Ninja Theory's example.

But that's not exactly what I wanted to talk about today. What I wanted to talk about is related to Jim's idea, but not quite the same. His video got me thinking about modern games and, as a brief test, I went and looked at the "Upcoming Releases" on Steam and the PlayStation store. As expected, pretty much every single high profile game coming out in the next few months is being released in multiple editions with adverts for pre-order bonuses and season passes being flung at you from every direction, like some great hailstorm of BS. In fact, it seems impossible to find a game from any of the big publishers like Activision, EA, 2K, Ubisoft, etc. which isn't set to release with its own 'Digital Deluxe' nonsense or pre-order incentives like day-one costumes and bonus weapons. Go ahead, try and find one, I doubt you'll succeed. Sadly, this is just the way the industry is now and, even if most of us who grew up with games hate it, we pretty much have to shrug our shoulders and deal with it the best we can.

This is what I'm talking about...

Personally, I've never bought a season pass and have no plans to. I've loved many games that have been released over the last few years and bought individual pieces of DLC that interested me now and then, but the very thought of spending nearly £100 in total on a single game just appals me. I'm not even sure how young gamers manage to get by these days, aside from having incredibly indulgent and wealthy parents. Either way, it's clear that the industry is in a bit of a mess and, at least on the AAA side of things, it doesn't show too many signs of getting better. If a big game comes out these days, it seemingly cannot exist without a slew of DLC, microtransactions and marketing gimmicks, as well as having a story and characters that are very purposefully designed to fit the "Hollywood blockbuster" model and appeal to the widest audience possible to ensure high sales figures. And let's not even mention how many of these games are forced to launch with bugs and require countless patches down the line (Destiny 2's PS4 Pro game-breaking bug is a recent example).

Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed plenty of these sorts of games. Just this year, for example, Horizon: Zero Dawn has easily been one of my favourite gaming experiences, and I'm hardly going to start complaining about games finally reaching a point where they can emulate movies and boast of big budgets and lifelike graphics. However, I'm left wondering about certain games from the past and what might have happened if they'd been released in the last couple of years. For the sake of an example, let's look at BioShock, one of my favourite games of all time and a prime example of the point I'm trying to make.

A masterpiece

BioShock was released in 2007 (side note: 2007 was one of the best ever years for gaming, in my opinion, with releases like Portal, Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Super Mario Galaxy, and Team Fortress 2), a time when microtransactions and oodles of DLC accompanying every single release weren't yet set into the minds of the world's publishers. The game was released in physical form for a standard price. There was a steelbook edition sold in certain stories, but it was the same price as the regular box and didn't come along with any bonus DLC codes or useless paraphernalia.

There was a special edition, but the company originally had no plans to release one and was actually pressured into it by fans! As hype for the game built up, more and more folks demanded to see a special edition and Take-Two actually organised an online petition to see if enough people were interested, and then, when the poll was a major success, they organised another poll to ask people what they wanted to see in the special edition! In the end, the Limited Collector's Edition of BioShock came with a cool Big Daddy statue and two discs filled with extra content. No exclusive in-game items, no special prize for buying on day one, no pointless bonuses that didn't actually do anything. 

BioShock was a video game, carefully and loving created, put in a box and left for people to enjoy. There was no tacked-on multiplayer, no DLC down the line, no season pass, no costume packs, no in-game currency for you to buy with real-world cash, nothing. Oh and the story? Taking inspiration from Atlas Shrugged and other dystopian fiction, it dealt with some pretty deep themes in some special ways, but Ken Levine and his team were granted full freedom to bring their vision to life without any pressure to tick boxes or fulfil some kind of pre-existing "blockbuster" framework.

This only existed because the fans demanded it

The result of all this? One of the most critically-acclaimed video games ever made, held up as a shining example of what this medium is capable of and perhaps one of the strongest arguments for "games are art" advocates. The world is a better place with BioShock in it and the game went on to spawn two excellent sequels (yes, I think BioShock 2 is a great game even if it's guilty of a lot of dumb stuff). But let's say that a studio like Take-Two wanted to put out that game today, would they really be able to? Certainly not in the way it originally came out.

Let's be honest, if BioShock was coming out today, not only would a season pass be an absolute guarantee, with needless tacked-on story sections and survival rooms thrown in for an extra $40 fee, but we can easily imagine the quality of the game itself being affected by modern times. When you actually look at some of the themes and scenarios in BioShock, it's hardly the sort of fare that anyone would say screams of "mass appeal" to a "casual audience". It's easy to see how the base idea of "A city underwater filled with mutants" could have been handheld along every step of the "How to make a blockbuster game for dummies" guide.

*Spoilers*

Now, this is where our example gets a little tricky, because Ken Levine is one of the most respected men in the business and I sincerely doubt he'd stand for any nosy publishers telling him how to make his game, but, for the sake of argument, let's just run with this. It might be a little cynical or far-fetched, but it's not that hard to imagine how this game could've turned out if the big boys at EA or Activision got their hands on it. 

The first thing you see in BioShock? A beautiful menu that somehow manages to set the tone for the whole experience to follow with some simple art deco-infused boxes and piano key sound effects. In a 2017 game, it's not hard to imagine that screen being pushed back to make way for a "Give us your email address and tick these boxes to join our club and receive our newsletter!" page, along with a couple of adverts encouraging you to download your day-one outfits and don't forget to redeem your season pass code.

Gee... thanks

The subtly spooky and memorable Sander Cohen sequence? Too complicated, replace it with a boss fight. Gene-splicing addicts as enemies? Too weird, replace them with monsters. No multiplayer? Are you serious? This is an FPS, right? It's got to have multiplayer! The moral dilemma of either saving or killing Little Sisters to earn ADAM for your upgrades? No worries, give us $5 and you'll load in with 500 bonus ADAM and an exclusive plasmid! Finished the story and reflecting on what a well-crafted and perfect experience it was? Well get ready to open up your wallet because we've got some DLC time trials and 2 hours of bonus story to sell you next month, and we'll be announcing our annual release program for this hot new cash cow franchise at E3! Be sure to make an account on our site to get access to the live stream. We can also imagine the RPG aspects of the game being massively played up as it seems like pretty much everything (even sports games nowadays!) has to have some kind of levelling system.

Hey, I admitted I was being excessively cynical, so don't judge me here. I know that might not be exactly what would happen, but it's not too hard to imagine, either. The truth is that the modern games industry has transmogrified into this hideous factory farm of shady practices and immoral marketing. Plenty of modern games are excellent, but they all inevitably come with this gross money-making baggage that is turning many long-time gamers away and pushing them deeper and deeper into the independent market, where developers, small and large, are getting better at making good-looking, well-designed games that actually have the quality to stay standing in a fight against some of the big boys. And this is good news. Out of darkness, light always emerges and now, at a time when the AAA industry is so deeply and darkly infested, it's good to see such a positive response from the indie world.

More games like this please

Am I going too far with this? I don't think so. I love that the games industry has reached a point where titles like Horizon and Destiny 2 can exist; these are the sorts of titles we never even dreamt of in our youth, but, to quote Uncle Ben, with great power comes great responsibility. Sadly, this industry is a business like any other and money needs to be made, and when unscrupulous businesses find new methods to exploit their audience as much as possible, well, they use them! DLC, season passes and Digital Deluxe Editions aren't going away any time soon, and I know many people would counter this argument by saying "Nobody is forcing you to buy them!" and that's true. It's perfectly possible to ignore all this stuff, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a problem here.

Nowadays, games are being developed with all of this stuff in mind. DLC is planned out months ahead of release, studios spend valuable time working on stupid add-ons and packs when they could be focusing on the game itself, and even the special editions are prepared in the most insidious way and given ludicrous price tags. Similarly, games with original and perhaps a little controversial ideas (like the way mental health issues are approached in Hellblade, for example) are controlled and moulded to fit a pre-defined formula, suffocating creativity and resulting in a AAA market utterly littered with games that basically consist of saving the world over and over.

It's pretty safe to say that if a game like BioShock was coming out this year, it would not be the masterpiece we saw back in 2007. It'd have some of the elements of that game, sure, and it might even become a critical darling and go down as one of the best games of all time regardless, but it would undoubtedly be released with a watered-down story, a slew of DLC and a whole bunch of extra nonsense that the original game never needed. And that would be a tragedy. A little tragedy in the grand scheme of things, but a tragedy nonetheless.

Overwatch Underwatch: The Ingredients Of The Ultimate Hero

Who should you choose?

Let's talk about Overwatch. Specifically, let's talk about Overwatch heroes. More specifically, let's talk about what I think constitutes the ideal Overwatch hero. The more I play of this game, the more I find myself thinking about my hero choices, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Overwatch has a rich cast of characters, each of which can be highly effective when played well, but if we take an 'objective' look at the cast of heroes, can we try and somehow identify the best? Every player from the MLG professional to the casual Hanzo main will have his or her view on the matter, and experts on the game fervently do their best to create tier lists, using tables of data and pages of stats to painstakingly calculate the most effective heroes in the game and rank them accordingly.

What I'm going to do is take a much less scientific (and therefore far less reliable and accurate) approach, but one that I think a lot of players will still be able to relate to. Comparing Overwatch is such a complicated subject and the meta is constantly changing thanks to Blizzard's regular updates, meaning that one hero's influence and potential can fluctuate massively from one month to the next. Take Roadhog, for example. Before the latest patch, stats showed Roadhog was one of the most effective heroes in the game and almost a must-pick in many cases. From a personal point of view, he was one of my most-used heroes and by far my favourite tank. But then Blizzard decided to switch things up a little, giving him a larger clip and faster rate of fire, but reducing the damage of his weapon to make the "hook/one shot kill" combo no longer possible. Result: Win rates for Roadhog players have dropped on average around 6%.

Anyway, I said I wasn't going to talk stats, so we'll leave the numbers there, but you get the idea? The point I'm trying to make is that tier lists and 'best heroes' will never be set in stone in this game, and that's part of the fun of it. Back in the beta, Torbjorn and Bastion were ubiquitous, no team was complete without at least one of them; now, these heroes are regarded as far less effective. The game evolves and players evolve with it, and that's definitely a large part of why, over a year after release, Overwatch hasn't gotten stale despite a relatively small amount of new content. That said, I feel that there are certain criteria that will always be relevant when it comes to defining what makes a good Overwatch character, and I'll be highlighting those criteria here today.

Shock!

Again, there are so many different ways to judge each hero and I make no claims whatsoever that my criteria are the be-all and end-all of the discussion. They're also, quite honestly, pretty vague, so at this point I'm starting to even wonder myself why I'm bothering to write them down, but I still think there's some kind of merit to them. Nowadays, when I'm trying to pick my heroes, as well as considering the usual factors that go into hero selection (map, individual skill, mode, attack or defense, team composition), I'm also trying to include these criteria in my choices, and I'm seeing some reasonable results. My win rate is a little higher than 50%, and that'll do for me.

Okay, without further ado, let's talk about the four key factors that I think go into making the ultimate Overwatch hero:

1) Offense
2) Defense
3) Agility
4) Ultimate

For me, the best heroes will be able to tick all four of these boxes, and what I mean by that is that they'll be able to offer reasonable DPS potential, some form of defensive/healing ability, some form of unique movement ability and an ultimate that could be (subjectively, of course) classed as one of the most effective in the game.

It's almost like the old card game Top Trumps. Remember that? For those who don't, Top Trumps cards basically featured individual subjects, ranging from the likes of animals and cars to Lord of the Rings and Marvel characters. Each card would have the same list of categories on it and each category would be assigned a value, relative to the subject of the card.

Aragorn was always a good card to have in your hand.

Here's an example, just to illustrate my rather feeble description. Anyway, let's imagine that Overwatch heroes got their own Top Trumps cards, I feel like the categories would surely include (but perhaps not be limited to) Offense, Defense, Agility, and Ultimate. Again, we're talking vague stuff here, but when you actually start to break down those categories and think about how certain heroes work, you realise that they're actually not bad for giving you a broad overview of how well-rounded each character in the game actually is.

Let's look at D.Va as an example. Offense would probably be her lowest rating, but it still wouldn't be too bad. Particularly at close range, her Fusion Cannons can dish out a decent amount of damage. And even at mid to long range, she can rain down fire continuously on any target within her line of sight. She ticks the 'Defense' box with ease thanks to her 'Defense Matrix' ability, allowing her to completely nullify any damage for her and her team.

We could also add in the fact that she technically has "two lives" due to the fact that she continues to survive when her mech gets destroyed as a decent 'Defense' ability. She locks down the 'Agility' rating with her Boosters, and her Self-Destruct is generally regarded as one of the better Ultimates in the game, as well as being the most damaging single-hit move of any character on the roster. 

So we can effectively say that D.Va is perhaps one of the best all-round heroes in the entire game as she manages to fulfil all of our criteria. Let's look at an example of a hero that doesn't quite reach the same standards: McCree. Offensively, of course, McCree can be a beast. His Peacekeeper does a decent amount of damage, especially with headshots, and the Fan The Hammer ability can be used to melt enemies in a flash. Defensively, however, he fails to check the box.

The only ability in McCree's repertoire we can really class as 'defensive' in any possible way is his Flashbang, but this ability simply stuns an enemy and that stun lasts for less than a second, so it's not going to save you or your team that often. Agility-wise, McCree has no ability to get around the map faster or reach high ground (no, his roll doesn't count). His Ultimate, however, especially after the most recent patch, is particularly deadly and can wipe out low-health characters in the blink of an eye.

It's high noon...

From this, we could say that McCree adequately fulfils two of our four vital criteria: 'Offense' and 'Ultimate'. As an Offense hero, it seems only natural that he'd excel in these categories and struggle in the others, and you might even assume that we could establish a general pattern in which Offense heroes have great Offense ratings, Defense heroes do well in the defensive stakes, Tanks tend to be decent all-rounders and Supports generally tick the 'Defense' and 'Ultimate' boxes, but this isn't really true.

Some heroes do fit that mould, but others completely break out of it. Look at Genji, as an example. Just like D.Va, I would say he is one of the few heroes in the game who manages to tick every single box. Strong offensively with Swift Strike and his Shuriken, his Reflect ability is a superb defensive tool, Cyber-Agility allows him to run up walls and double jump, giving him one of the best 'Agility' ratings in the game, and his Ultimate can be devastating. He find himself in the 'Offense' category, but he's a real all-rounder, just like Soldier: 76.

We could go through the entire roster (and perhaps someday I will) in order to discern each character's general all-round ability ratings, but let's leave that for a later time. The point of all this (if indeed, there is a point) would be that if we really do want to try and break down the roster and analyse the greatest heroes, these would perhaps be the categories to use. The "Ultimate Overwatch Hero" will almost definitely never exist, but those that come closest will be the heroes who manage to tick all of these boxes. The best heroes need to be strong, solid, mobile and have an excellent ultimate ability; these are the factors that will give them the edge in almost any 1v1 battle.

So the next time you find yourself on the select screen and aren't sure who to choose, take these factors into consideration. Look at the map, look at the mode, look at whether you need to be attacking or defending and look at the rest of your team. Consider the stats of each hero and use all of this information to help yourself make the right choice.

Review: Outlast 2

Welcome to die.

A few years ago, Outlast burst onto the scene and almost single-handedly revived the ailing horror genre. The independently-produced scarefest did an incredible job of terrifying anyone who played it, as well as giving us all a few more reasons to steer clear of any abandoned asylums we happen to come across. The first game rightfully earned developer Red Barrels legions of followers and became an instant classic in the genre, much like Amnesia: The Dark Descent before it.

Now, the much-anticipated sequel has arrived on the scene with a lot of hype and some big shoes to fill. Sadly, while the first game’s relatively simplistic mechanics and harrowing chase sequences helped to cement it as a classic, the same ideas actually manage to hinder Outlast 2, which isn’t a bad game, but fails to topple the lofty bar set by its predecessor.

Let’s start off on a positive note by talking about what’s new, and there’s actually quite a lot to talk about. The setting, for instance, is totally different this time around. Delving into the big bad book of horror clichés, Red Barrels landed on the page marked ‘backwards religious cults in the middle of nowhere’ and ran with it. Where Outlast confined us to the tight halls, grey cells and grimy sewers of the Mount Massive Asylum, Outlast 2 shakes things up, transporting our new hero, cameraman Blake Langermann, to the Arizona desert.

Meet Marta.

Blake will spend the 6-8 hours of the game’s duration sprinting, climbing and tiptoeing his way through villages, mines, and cornfields. Without giving too much away, the plot involves a pair of rival cults, each boasting its own psychotic leader and monstrous lieutenants. Blake and his wife Lynn are thrust into the middle of this conflict and separated, and like any good hubby, Blake will do whatever it takes to save his love.

The plot gets a little convoluted and bizarre towards the latter stages of the game, with an ending that will surely prove to be very divisive, but it does a good enough job of funnelling the action along and providing you with some motivation to keep on trucking. And motivation is something you’ll need to cancel out the frustration that comes along with large sections of Outlast 2’s gameplay.

A big selling point of the game prior to release was the introduction of huge, open areas, with many fans eagerly awaiting the thrill and fear that seemingly go hand-in-hand with the idea of blindly charging through a cornfield and wishing with all your might not to bump into anything spooky. Unfortunately, in practice, these large environments aren’t a whole lot of fun to navigate. For the most part, you’re left blindly running in circles until you happen to come across the exit or the one object you need to use to proceed.

Cornflakes - Lovely. Corn on the cob - Awesome. Cornfields filled with murderous villagers - Not so cool.

Why don’t these open areas work as well? The simple answer is design. The first game’s narrow, compact environments facilitated a seamless gameplay experience with guaranteed frights and minimal frustration. The developers could introduce an enemy at one end of a long hallway, safe in the knowledge that the player would have no option but to turn around and run the other way. They could then plan out the player’s route, introducing additional obstacles and enemies along the way to create a linear, but harrowing experience. In Outlast 2, you have a bigger sandbox to run around, but there’s still only one door that will lead you to the next passage or one item that will open up the next scene, so it becomes much more about luck and repetition than anything else.

In principle, the idea of frantically searching around for your way out of this nightmare is both terrifying and realistic, and could have resulted in some highly exciting, dynamic chases, but it just isn’t a whole lot of fun to play. With a few one-hit kill enemies thrown in for good measure, too often you’ll be forced to replay sections again and again, running a slightly different way each and every time until you ‘trial and error’ your way into the solution. Speaking of the enemies, none of them manage to be quite as memorable as Whistleblower’s Eddie Gluskin (also known as The Groom), but Marta, a gigantic, pickaxe-wielding, witch-like figure, sure will scare your pants off every time she bursts onto the screen, and the game features a pretty interesting cast of villains in general.

Every now and then, Blake will enter a dreamlike state in which he’ll return to the school of his childhood, navigating abandoned classrooms and creepy hallways. These sections of the game are much more reminiscent of the original Outlast and I found them to be generally much scarier and more enjoyable to play, perhaps reinforcing the idea that this sort of game works better in a confined space. One cool new mechanic is also the addition of a directional microphone on your video camera, allowing you to listen through walls and doors to locate enemies. It drains the camera battery extra fast, but it certainly saved my life more than once and added a little bit of extra depth to the stealthy gameplay.

The school sequences break up the frantic action with some slow-burning scares.

Just like in the original game, Outlast 2 presents you with limited options: run, hide, or die. The last one isn’t too appealing and the second isn’t particularly useful this time around, so you’ll basically be doing a whole lot of running. There are still plenty of beds to crawl under and blood-filled barrels to jump into, but with the sheer quantity of enemies and scope of the environments, hiding just doesn’t feel particularly useful. Again, the first game presented us with such tiny spaces that hiding in lockers was often the only way to escape certain enemies, but here it’s easier to just sprint in random directions for 10 seconds until your pursuers simply give up the chase.

Despite the negative aspects mentioned above, Outlast 2 remains a fun horror experience. There are plenty of gruesome scenes to uncover and creepy sequences to endure. The developers sure know how to create an atmosphere, using lighting, sound and scenery to great effect. Some parts of the game are particularly strong; one latter section down in the mines is incredibly tense, the school sequences are terrifically terrifying, and I won’t be forgetting my encounters with Marta for quite some time. The opening thirty minutes also does a wonderful job of building the tension with creepy sound effects, glowing eyes in the darkness and “did I just see that?” moments that will have you freaking out and gleefully awaiting the horrors to come.

Spooky spooky spooky!

Is it the lack of innovation and slightly subpar level design that makes Outlast 2 a less satisfying experience? Is it the fact that I couldn’t help comparing it to another recently released horror game that brought so much more to the table (Resident Evil 7)? Is it the fact that the first game set such lofty expectations? Is it just a case of ‘second album syndrome’? Maybe it’s a little of all of these things. By the end of Outlast, I felt like I’d ridden a rollercoaster of terrors and could still feel the adrenaline pumping in my veins. The first game’s Whistleblower DLC left me even more terrified. When Outlast 2’s credits rolled, I found myself doing little more than shrugging my shoulders.

The folks at Red Barrels deserve credit for trying some different ideas. Creativity is a virtue and, had the developers taken the ‘safer’ route of sending us back to Mount Massive for another 8 hours of cell blocks and offices, I think we’d all have been a little let down. The trouble is, they didn’t go far enough. They kept the same gameplay and stuck it in new surroundings, but more tinkering was needed to make the whole package gel together. As it is, Outlast 2 is a satisfying experience, but it’s very much a horror game-by-numbers. It follows beats we’ve heard before, uses tricks we’ve seen before, and ultimately feels like a game we’ve played before. I wasn’t expecting this sequel to revolutionise the genre in the same way the original did, but I still hoped for more than this.