0% progress? I'm sure there's a microtransaction to just complete the game.

Wow, that's kind of a harsh review. Even compared to others I've seen.

I's really like to see them give this game a big update patch in a few months time. Maybe add some more textures & models for the different cities you visit. Maybe add some extra enemy types. This review really attacked the story & characters though, I don't know if much can be done about that.

I'd still really like to play this game at some point. Maybe when the price goes down & a few patches are out.

@doremonhg9x: I think they should get rid of scores altogether. When somebody reviews the new iPhone, do they put a numbered score on it? Just list its pros & cons & let people make up their own mind if it's right for them. Let the comments debate the actual details of the review, instead of the number at the end.

@Dragon_Nexus: Just a cheap jab at the supmatto thing, really. It seems their in-game morality & external values are aligned.

Streamers are the bad guys? How apt.

@Atzenkiller: Borderlands 2 was long, but not in a good way.

The side missions usually had good writing & that made you want to play them, but otherwise they were vastly flawed. First of all, they usually took you right back to the area you had just been in, doing a main mission. You could say it's a chance to explore the area more, but with all the travelling, it felt like the game didn't respect my time. Secondly was the problem that enemies didn't level with the player, meaning you often got very little XP from killing all the waves of enemies in those side missions.

Finally, the main problem with the game is that most of the interesting abilities came a long way down the skill tree (this was somewhat fixed with the DLC characters). All those enemies just slightly below your level, giving you 1XP for each kill, meant that the levelling process was even slower.

Personally, I think a shorter game could be a lot better. It could encourage more playthroughs with different characters. BL2 was painful to go back to a low level character & have to grind through all the boring percentage increase perks just to get to the ones that really made the character play differently.

Some alternate timeline version of me would really want to play this game.

Unfortunately, in this timeline, I played Quantum Break & didn't love it. I really wanted to, but it just wasn't my brand of fun. Exploration wasn't amazing, combat was paint-by-numbers, that TV episode thing they had going was kinda boring. The changes I made in the game had such a minuscule effect on the "TV show", it felt like the story was mostly playing out on its own.

Control looks like a slightly more polished version of that game (& thankfully, without the TV show gimmick) but I suspect it won't be my cup of tea, even though it does look kinda cool & I am intrigued by the premise. I hope other people find enjoyment in this game, but I think it's probably not for me.4

@ganondorf77: Actually, many games have hidden dynamic difficulty. I think one of the more famous examples that was revealed in recent years is Resident Evil 4. Depending on how well you play in the game, less enemies spawn in some areas, for example.

I don't think having difficulty options is bad though. If you just want the default experience, there should be a "Normal" difficulty. For players who find games too difficult, or for those who want a harder challenge (especially on a second playthrough, which can be quite common for RPGs with different paths & endings), it's good to have those options. Some modern games even have more granular options, where players can choose combat difficulty, map markers, speech checks in dialogue etc. Personally, I think more choice is better.

@santinegrete: You, Sir, get one Internet Point for the use of the word, "incongruent".

Wow, even the spellchecker on this site doesn't know it's a real word. One more point.

I really liked the system in Nier: Automata where you had a certain power budget to spend, and you could choose to drop the AI to get a small advantage elsewhere. Personally I like having a HUD, but it's a cool option.

I think it should really be about choice though. For some, removing the UI is more immersive. For others, they wish Google Glass hadn't failed so epicly. Games like the Deus Ex series have a HUD as part of the in-game world - you can even get body modifications to add features like speech analysers. This means there's also the possibility of being hacked, or having enemies that could disable the HUD for a time. I think it's much more interesting, and much more authentic to a cyberpunk world if the on screen information is something that the player character can see, not something the player can turn on or off. Wouldn't it be more interesting if we could roleplay a character that chooses not to get their eyeballs modded?