Why do we play bad games? Well, in my case, it's usually to ensure that I don't ever have to play them again. Yes, that means I have to do the very thing I wanted to avoid doing, but......hey, you guys ever hear of Hacker Evolution Duality? Because I sure as hell haven't. In fact, I can't even remember how I got this game. What a strange thing to say, and not for the reasons you're thinking. Hacker is barely even a game. It's little more than using brute force and trial & error to figure out how best to complete a bunch of pre-planned steps.
Of course, things don't start out like this. In fact, the premise starts off rather well. I mean, you're some elite hacker (not that kind) turning the world's computers into your own play toys. Sound fun? Well, it isn't. Part of that has to do with the narrative context. The story doesn't do a lot outside its "hack a megacorporation so it doesn't use its super virus" premise, so there's not a lot here to make you feel invested. But a lot more of it simply has to do with how fixed the gameplay feels. Every single level feels like a fucking checklist that you have to go through. You flip this option so you can flip that option so you can flip this other option and.....I know this sounds reductive, but there really is nothing else to Hacker other than that. Hell, you don't even get any meaningful choices to make, unless you interpret "victory or defeat" as a conscious decision. Your actions hold absolutely no meaning; you're just there to fill in the gaps while the game yells at you to hurry things along.
Oh, did I not mention that? Turns out that while you're hacking away and sticking it to the man, a bunch of AI servers will take turns pelting you with satellite attacks until you've lost the level. You're in a constant race against the clock throughout the game. (You can eliminate them, but doing so pretty much nerfs any chance at progressing through the level. What wonderful game design.) Unfortunately, Hacker is (sort of) a strategy game, so the game is essentially asking you to take the time to think things out while also getting things done as fast as you can. It's frustrating, to say the least. Not even difficult or engaging on any real level; just annoying.
And tedious. Have I mentioned tedious? Because this game is really, really tedious. Some of that's because of how you play the game. Hacker gives you all these tools to accomplish your goals, but none of them are any fun to use. They're all simply awful. Let's look at key cracks as an example. They're nothing more than a jumbled screen of numbers that you have to click through in sequential order, because I guess Minesweeper could always use a bit more tedium. (Retina scans are about the same, albeit on a smaller scale.) And that's a tool that actually provides some sort of challenge; the rest simply ask that you match bars to specific values. How riveting. I'd say that the puzzles don't help, but that would be assuming that this game even has puzzles. There are none. Instead, you get the checklist stuff I described before and false choices. By that, I mean you get three choices, one of them's correct, and you have no way of knowing. So you either trial and error your way through a mission or completely break the flow and let the game literally give you the solution. What skill is this situation engaging? What is the game asking me to do? When am I supposed to feel like I've accomplished something? Because all I see is needless busywork masquerading as mechanical depth.
If I had to say one good thing about the game, I'd probably say something about the aesthetic. Everything's crisp and efficient (at least until those key cracks ruin your vision), and the music does a good job of pumping you up throughout. But man, in light of everything else, that is not enough to make this game worth playing. A clean look and electro beats can't mask significant problems like utterly rote gameplay that insults your intelligence while offering nothing in return, or.....no, that's pretty much the major problem with Hacker Evolution Duality. Well, that and the non-committal ending that I can't seem to find anywhere. But mostly that other stuff.
Review Synopsis
- Checklist speedrun. That sound enjoyable? It isn't.
- Where it isn't frustrating, it's tedious.
- But at least it looks good. I guess.
You know, this would've made just as much sense in my last blog.
These "theme" blogs really are hit and miss, aren't they? Half the time, I end up in a Napple Tale situation, where the games have absolutely nothing to do with each other. And then there are situations like these, where the stars align and my selections are somehow relevant to each other. Remember how Hacker was seven tedious levels too long, and it had a bunch of features that did nothing to make the game enjoyable? (If you can't remember, then that's probably a sign that I write too many words.) Bomberman's the exact opposite of that. Instead, it focuses on a couple of small ideas and develops the hell out of every last one of them.
Or perhaps just one idea: bomb the hell out of your enemies (and blocks that block you from bombing them). Does that sound simple? Well, that's because it is. And isn't. Therein lies the game's greatest strength: it finds the perfect sweet spot between simplicity and depth. On the one hand, bombing foes isn't easy. You have to manage a lot, like enemy behavior, your bomb's behavior, and the level design (and possibly its behavior). Bomberman's a slow game that prizes careful, well considered actions. It's almost predatorial, like a game of cat and mouse if the cat was packing heat.
Yet on the other hand that I've neglected until now, the game doesn't require too much thought. As slow as the game can feel, each level lasts only a couple of minutes, so the investment isn't particularly high. And for as much as you have to manage, the gameplay's still relatively easy to grasp, even when the game starts introducing new elements. Strange, isn't it? Bomberman can introduce all these cool power-ups like multiple bombs and walking through walls, yet it feels essentially the same as it did at the beginning. Let that stand as a testament to the game's quality: it gives you enough neat toys to engage your mental faculties, but not so much to overwhelm you or anything. It's like the game struck that one sweet spot between simplicity and strategy.
And then it goes on for about fifty levels. That's really my only complaint about Bomberman: it's too long for its own good. (That, and the bonus stages suck, but mostly the length thing.) You know how much I praised the game for making the most out of only a few features? Well, it still isn't enough to cover fifty levels. After a while, the game becomes a tedious slog, devoid of any variety. Having to search for a door at the end of each level only makes things worse. At times, it's like the game feels as though it has to go on, for reasons unknown, and the quality suffers as a result. Maybe on a portable platform, having this many levels and this little gameplay would make more sense, but.....turns out this game's on the GBA. You know what? Pick up that version. It's how the game was meant to be played.
Review Synopsis
- Hooray for meaty gameplay!
- Hooray for it being accessible, too!
- Also, this is Pinocchio, apparently.
Log in to comment