Game reviews exist to talk about those technical issues, to explore the way the game falls short or succeeds and wax poetic about why – so how do you do that when the game is, apparently, intentionally falling short? The subjectivity of critical games writing means we’re likely going to see many answers to this question and if you don’t fuck with mine, I can’t entirely blame you.
With that firmly in mind though, it does make the actual process of reviewing Deadly Premonition 2 a little tricky. Good for him, and good for those that vibe with it. I go back and forth on the merits of the auteur theory in media but ultimately this kind of single-minded, “art for the sake of art and not critical reception”, conviction Kojima brings to his games is something I do admire and Swery is essentially embodying his version of this philosophy. Kojima crafted an experience that was outright hostile to some and stuck to it with the convictions of a mad scientist, something else I, of course, fuck with. I’ve spent the last few weeks deeply entrenched in Hideo Kojima’s Death Stranding, a game which itself largely defied a traditional critical narrative. On Twitter, he has pointed out to those raising concerns about the technical issues that we know what Deadly Premonition is. Swery himself has weighed in on this issue, seemingly cutting it off at the pass by spurring on the apathetic response to the game’s glaring technical shortcomings.
This is inherently a part of the Deadly Premonition experience after all – the first game isn’t beloved for its technical prowess so why would this one be?
Take a look around the discussions happening on Twitter or Reddit and you’ll find countless fans all praising the shoddy framerate and stiff animations. When gameplay footage from Deadly Premonition 2 first made its way to the public a few weeks back the response was…fascinating.
0 kommentar(er)
