The Virginian 最近的评测

So I'm about halfway through the game, and I do intend on finishing it, but I have no real hope for improvement at this point. Basically, I think it's a cheap imitation of the first game in about every way it could be except maybe visually. It's constant referencing to the first and the nature of some of the introduced mechanics makes it impossible to judge it without looking through the lens of the first and I think it fails spectacularly at being a successor installment. The gameplay isn't awful by any means, but a lot of the new mechanics are just minor evolutions of mechanics from the first and I've seen a stark inability to craft the puzzle design in such a way that seamlessly integrates the new mechanics with the old and with each other. Each new world thus far has introduced a new mechanic and almost completely forgotten about whatever they introduced in the last one. To compensate for this, there's usually maybe one level per world that mashes together all the mechanics in a way that's never seamless and is usually very easy to beat. I know my opinion on that is gonna be in the minority and, if I'm being honest, it doesn't entirely ruin my experience of the puzzles for me, but it represents a microcosm of the bigger issue that constantly annoys me about the game and makes me unable to recommend it to fans of the first.

If you like puzzle games just for the puzzles, you'll probably like this. It's a fine puzzle game, just like the first, but whereas that game felt like a puzzle game with a philosophical angle, this feels like a philosophy game with puzzles in it sometimes, and the philosophy is the most egregiously butchered part of this sequel. What was initially a nuanced exploration of what it means to be human and how that applies to the conversation on AI has been morphed into a cyclical and one-sided discussion on hot button political issues with tertiary bearing on the topic these games were built upon. Whereas the first game was able to constantly offer another layer to the topic it aimed to discuss with every text file, this game aims to constantly beat you over the head with the same point told a million different ways. But the worst part isn't even how it's repeating the same point over and over again, it's how the game treats the opposing argument. Every character that offers the progressive worldview has a lot of different points to make in support of their arguments while every character that offers the conservative counterpoint is reduced to valuing safety over truth and having absolutely no other reasoning to support their beliefs. At best, the game makes some effort to ensure that the progressive viewpoint learns some nuance and caution from the conservative argument, but it seems deliberately designed so that the conservative characters don't make any attempt to consider the other side in the same way. Not only is the discussion framed by this game an inherently unhealthy view on political discourse, it totally fails at applying its topic to the greater discussion on the nature of humanity that The Talos Principle is founded upon (it's literally in the name!). Its attempts at doing so are half-assed and only contribute to the one-sided argument the game is making, usually trying to make a point about humans being defined by their ability to learn, and then unsuccessfully connecting that to the idea that society should recklessly develop without consideration for themselves and the world around them. Gone are the days of interesting philosophical discussions with Milton. Instead, we are subject to a million text files spouting the exact same rhetoric and Trevor's ridiculously cringy audio files.

Games like this seek to create a false reality where no perspective other than that of the developers needs to be considered because they feel their argument is nuanced enough that they don't need to apply the same nuance to the opposing argument. They are entirely too common in the modern gaming industry, and while most people are able to identify lazy game design and lambaste modern gaming for it, there needs to be more criticism of the lazy, dogmatic writing that ruins some of the best part of classic games and epitomizes the core issue behind the trend of the industry at large. That is why I cannot recommend this game and I feel the need to counter signal against the overwhelmingly positive reception. I just don't think this game is all that, and if you're paying attention to the rhetoric, you'll quickly understand why.