Riona (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
rionaleonhart) wrote2019-09-10 06:13 pm
rionaleonhart) wrote2019-09-10 06:13 pm
Entry tags:
A Sledgehammer Is Not Fucking Chill.
I really need to stop getting into videogames that are constantly put down in comparison to the developer's previous output. Everyone complains that Life Is Strange 2 isn't as good as Life Is Strange; everyone complains that Man of Medan isn't as good as Until Dawn. Every new Final Fantasy game is accused of being the worst one in the series.
What do these games have in common? They set out to do something different from their predecessors, rather than being direct sequels with the same themes, gameplay and characters. A lot of the time, they're not actually being criticised for being worse; they're being criticised for being different.
I don't think Man of Medan is as strong as Until Dawn in its writing or its characters. But it is vastly more ambitious in its branching; there are a lot of things that can vary across playthroughs, both small and large, and I'm really impressed by what it's achieved. I've seen some people complain that it feels low-effort, which is just bewildering to me. It's clear that a phenomenal amount of effort went into this game: considerably more than I'd expect from a five-hour game that I bought on release day for the cost of two cinema tickets.
Man of Medan and Until Dawn both faced the same problem: how do you construct a plot in a game where any character can die? What if a crucial character is killed before the climax? Until Dawn had a simple solution: characters cannot die until they're no longer required by the plot. Man of Medan's solution is much more ambitious and much cooler: any of the characters can step into the necessary end-of-game roles. It's not essential for any specific character to be alive by the start of the final act; Alex is framed as the main character, and there's a specific climax that can only play out if he's around, but, if he's gone, the others can save the day themselves.
Speaking of differences between the two games: making it dangerous to give information over the radio in Man of Medan is brilliantly cruel. In Until Dawn, using the radio is what gets your characters rescued at the end of the game. I just cheerfully trusted that Man of Medan was doing the same thing.
Also brilliant: you naturally assume that picking up the various weapons you find is a good idea, but in fact it puts your characters in more danger. Again, it's playing on the expectations of people who played Until Dawn. In Until Dawn, the threat is real and external, something weapons might help against. In Man of Medan, the biggest danger is that you'll mistakenly harm one of your friends, so arming yourself just increases the risk.
(Another false accusation I often see levelled at Man of Medan, alongside 'your choices don't make a difference': 'there's no supernatural threat, therefore the plot is objectively bad'. I personally think 'the horror exists mainly in the characters' heads, and that creates actual danger' is a really interesting concept to explore. Plus they're hoping to have eight games in this horror anthology; do you really want to restrict all of them to supernatural horror?)
One really cool detail: the hallucinations characters have are informed by their experiences. In the 'Alex and the rats' climactic scene, Alex perceives one of his allies as a two-headed monster, if he previously looked in a coffin and saw a two-headed skeleton. If he didn't open the coffin (I didn't; I'm not looking in coffins in a horror story! That's clearly a bad idea!), he instead hallucinates Olson.
I was originally thinking that I probably wouldn't get into watching bits of Let's Plays for this game in the way I did for Until Dawn, but watching people do the online co-op is great fun. 'Don't stab me! Don't stab me!'
I forgot to mention that Man of Medan has the most bonkers mechanical oversight I've seen in my life: inverting the Y axis also inverts the dialogue wheel. I had to hold the analogue stick top-left if I wanted the bottom-left option. On the first dialogue choice I was just screaming helplessly, desperately and unsuccessfully trying to make Brad say something before the timer ran out.
What do these games have in common? They set out to do something different from their predecessors, rather than being direct sequels with the same themes, gameplay and characters. A lot of the time, they're not actually being criticised for being worse; they're being criticised for being different.
I don't think Man of Medan is as strong as Until Dawn in its writing or its characters. But it is vastly more ambitious in its branching; there are a lot of things that can vary across playthroughs, both small and large, and I'm really impressed by what it's achieved. I've seen some people complain that it feels low-effort, which is just bewildering to me. It's clear that a phenomenal amount of effort went into this game: considerably more than I'd expect from a five-hour game that I bought on release day for the cost of two cinema tickets.
Man of Medan and Until Dawn both faced the same problem: how do you construct a plot in a game where any character can die? What if a crucial character is killed before the climax? Until Dawn had a simple solution: characters cannot die until they're no longer required by the plot. Man of Medan's solution is much more ambitious and much cooler: any of the characters can step into the necessary end-of-game roles. It's not essential for any specific character to be alive by the start of the final act; Alex is framed as the main character, and there's a specific climax that can only play out if he's around, but, if he's gone, the others can save the day themselves.
Speaking of differences between the two games: making it dangerous to give information over the radio in Man of Medan is brilliantly cruel. In Until Dawn, using the radio is what gets your characters rescued at the end of the game. I just cheerfully trusted that Man of Medan was doing the same thing.
Also brilliant: you naturally assume that picking up the various weapons you find is a good idea, but in fact it puts your characters in more danger. Again, it's playing on the expectations of people who played Until Dawn. In Until Dawn, the threat is real and external, something weapons might help against. In Man of Medan, the biggest danger is that you'll mistakenly harm one of your friends, so arming yourself just increases the risk.
(Another false accusation I often see levelled at Man of Medan, alongside 'your choices don't make a difference': 'there's no supernatural threat, therefore the plot is objectively bad'. I personally think 'the horror exists mainly in the characters' heads, and that creates actual danger' is a really interesting concept to explore. Plus they're hoping to have eight games in this horror anthology; do you really want to restrict all of them to supernatural horror?)
One really cool detail: the hallucinations characters have are informed by their experiences. In the 'Alex and the rats' climactic scene, Alex perceives one of his allies as a two-headed monster, if he previously looked in a coffin and saw a two-headed skeleton. If he didn't open the coffin (I didn't; I'm not looking in coffins in a horror story! That's clearly a bad idea!), he instead hallucinates Olson.
I was originally thinking that I probably wouldn't get into watching bits of Let's Plays for this game in the way I did for Until Dawn, but watching people do the online co-op is great fun. 'Don't stab me! Don't stab me!'
I forgot to mention that Man of Medan has the most bonkers mechanical oversight I've seen in my life: inverting the Y axis also inverts the dialogue wheel. I had to hold the analogue stick top-left if I wanted the bottom-left option. On the first dialogue choice I was just screaming helplessly, desperately and unsuccessfully trying to make Brad say something before the timer ran out.