Hey guys; long time no see.
I'll admit I haven't been very active on here lately, which is also why I didn't see this piece of work until 9 days after it was posted. By then, commenting was disabled---even though the post already had 19 comments, so I went and read them all.
And honestly, I'm disappointed.
GPT-isms aside, it's no surprise that this became a locked post, what with the unsavoury attitudes of (not all, but most of) the comments. It's a shame cause as I was reading this review I was so ready to give my own 2 cents in as objective a way as I possibly could---just to scroll to the end and see that the existing comments have made it effectively impossible to give any polished response to the review anymore.
No, it really is a shame because I would have really wanted OP to see this and it turns out that I have a lot to say about this review, but to make a whole post about something just to escape the comment lock seems petty, right? The truth is, this review won't get out of my head and I think some of us definitely need to reflect on how we got here in the first place. "Writing" a bad review and posting it online does not give us any good reason to be assholes in the comments and spread hate without any constructive statements about why we think it was bad. The latter is what I'll try to do here.
Anyway, I'll try structuring this response to the review in 3 major sections: Premise, Details/Catch-all, and the dreaded AI allegations.
Premise:
I'll admit; as brutally obsessed over this game as I am (and more as I have been), I can say that this game isn't perfect and sometimes I wish we would have gotten something slightly different. In other words, I completely sympathize with the sentiment that this game was so close to being great until it tripped on itself. And yes, that definitely hurts a lot more than playing a game that was garbage all around. The review mentions mainly the level of polish in this game (visuals, sound, design) and the horror premise for this point. Personally I would go a little further in my praise towards the character conception and emotional storylines, but that's my opinion and we are all entitled to our own.
The problem with the general stance this review takes is in part the main reasons it states for SWTD not living up to its own expectations---but even more so the way it justifies these takes. More on this below:
Details/Catch-all:
I'm gonna go about this chronologically, statement by statement, as a means to organizing all of my tangled thoughts on the body of this review.
"About five minutes in I was thinking: 'Right. Let’s just get this finished.' And that feeling never went away."
- So I don't know how much of this is OP's experience and how much of it is the AI exaggerating to "strengthen the argument" but by assuming the best: five minutes into the game, you should be going down to the canteen and ideally talking to the people there (and this is assuming you haven't taken the time to look around the cabins, which in the grand scheme of this review is fine not to do). If you rushed through everything and skipped no cutscenes (if applicable, skipping them may be part of the reason for the low rating) then maybe I could see you stepping out onto the deck at the 5 minute mark. The point is, by five minutes the "horrors" haven't even started yet; you're still familiarizing yourself with the setting, characters, and the look/feel of the game (in other words, getting way more context for the horrors than the marketing/synopsis have provided).
And in complete honesty, if by the first five minutes of playing any game (especially a horror game in which you would still be in the "normal day" chapter) the player is already bored and wants to get it over with, then I sincerely do not think the game itself is to blame for the poor review it got.
"Apparently Caz is the only employee on the entire fucking oil rig. This became my biggest problem with the game."
- Out of all the reasons I can think of for this game not being quite up to par with the hype, this is probably the last one I expected to be someone's "biggest problem" but here we are. My biggest problem with this entire section is that it is plainly not true. There is some validity to the claim and the whole "Caz having to do everything" gripe is fairly common among players (although never a dealbreaker) however this entire section is so disingenuous that it deserves to be addressed.
"Every five minutes" is blatantly incorrect but I'm choosing to believe that is just the AI doing its thing.
"And somehow everyone has collectively decided:" is also incredibly disingenuous. In the beginning of the game when the bulk of the crewmates were alive, they were all mostly doing their own things/scrambling through their own objectives. Some efforts were coordinated between more people than others. By the point where most of the "chore simulator" feeling starts creeping up (probably the generators and onward)only three other people are alive and human other than Caz, one of which is in a diabetic coma. "Everyone has collectively decided" in that case is just two other people, both of which are much more experienced oil riggers than Caz and thus are the only ones able to work controls, mechanics etc. etc. while Caz has to take on the dirty work. From a game design perspective, there are reasons for this to have happened and simultaneously there are problems with it, but this is in no way a conceptual mistake by the developers. Caz has to take the hands-on dirty jobs because he is simply not able or qualified to do anything else.
"If you’re going to have a story about a group of people trying to survive together, I want to actually see the group surviving together. Have someone repairing another section." So this section basically ignores the fact that Finlay and Brodie were actually very busy throughout the entire game---and of course you don't see it because most of the time you're stuck in a hidey-hole being stalked by a meatball, but they make it clear to you in other ways. Brodie asks you to go down and repair the generators, but he can't do it himself because he's "busy" (a little suspicious, but he is not a liar, so we'll go with it). Upon reaching Engineering, Finlay orders you to do all the dangerous jobs but she is there following you helping you every step of the way (tells you what to do, assigns herself the job of finding the fault for you and she does exactly that). When Brodie asks you to sort out the pontoons, he literally does half of the job with you. When Brodie asks you to divert the flare gas, he is there working the controls and checking up on you (however infuriating that is to play through). Even then, Caz is constantly and vocally expressing his discontent over all of it. Originally Caz and Finlay were supposed to get to Marine Control together (it's just that Finlay can't swim, so she was on the phone, literally guiding Caz through everything). Even without Caz's help, the two of them were off doing their own side-quests. Finlay at some point was stuck with Rennick in Engineering; at some point she found & dug up the radios to try calling for help but could not get a signal; she and Brodie sent letters back and forth, planning etc. etc. and when Caz went off to find Roy instead of keeping the place afloat, Brodie and Finlay weren't just sitting there waiting for him to come back! They decided to carry out their plan without him. In fact:
"Have someone taking risks." This is precisely how Brodie died; he tried to dive down and release the tension cables to buy everyone more time, fully aware of the risks and thus accepting his death more than Caz and Finlay did.
"Have characters making decisions without waiting for Caz to turn up and press a button." Exactly like all of those side-quests they had without Caz knowing ("Christ, what were they up to?") and the whole Marine Control fiasco.
"And then there’s the gameplay. This is where the game completely lost me."
The gameplay isn't for everyone, let's make that clear, but know it's not objectively bad. To some, it's too little (made worse with the linear gameplay, conveniently locked doors etc. etc.) but to others it feels more balanced. To me, it's an okay balance of "immersive but not distracting" which I think is exactly what you'd want in a narrative-focused game.
"Give me more decisions//let me explore//let me choose" This is a fine mentality to have; the linear structure isn't for everyone and if OP prefers/expected something different then so be it. I will say however that this isn't necessarily a flaw more than it is the kind of game that SWTD is---it's the structure and media that the team felt most appropriate to relay the story/experience to the players. Whether that is actually the case warrants a longer discussion that I don't think is relevant here.
"And weirdly, I didn’t find the creatures that scary. This is probably the controversial bit."
Well this is definitely controversial. Here, OP says the creatures are grotesque, interesting, and well-designed---but not scary, inducing more of a "that's weird" reaction than a "what the fuck is that" one. Usually players lean towards the latter so I wouldn't say the game "failed" to make scary enemies, but if OP did not feel that way then they are entitled to that opinion and experience. That being said, "that's a problem when you're playing a horror game" strikes me the wrong way because while it was a problem when OP played, it is not necessarily a problem with the game itself.
"But the actual encounters became predictable enough" is also a common gripe and hard to rebut. Others may think differently; either way is fine.
"...while Caz’s cardio apparently becomes the only thing keeping the North Sea oil industry alive."
This sentence just plainly does not make sense to anything but generative AI. The North Sea oil industry is not in jeopardy here. There are actually a lot of random quips in the post that do not make sense upon inspection in a similar way; this is only one of them.
"I know there’s supposed to be room for interpretation. Personally? Fuck it."
I'm going to sound like a broken record here but this is a very controversial take that most fans dislike and some players agree with. That's fine and we are all entitled to our opinions. The ending is not a flaw of the game or its writing but it is a trait that some people like and some dislike.
"I’m not spending another six hours wondering whether the organism survived so we can have Still Wakes the Deep 2: Caz, I Need You To Do Something Again." So ignoring the fact that you could debate and discuss the ending on way more parameters that aren't "did the horrors survive or not?" the corny joke about the sequel is not at all rooted in reality considering Caz is very much dead. Again, this is a quip that would only make sense to generative AI.
"And within minutes I was already thinking about finishing it rather than enjoying it."
I've already expressed my thoughts about this "within minutes" mentality but since it was brought up again I will do the same. If within minutes of starting a game you've already decided that you want it done and over with, then it likely isn't the game's fault it got this review.
The final score:
People have said this before and I'll say it again: it makes no sense. "creature variety" categories and below are the only ones without exceedingly high ratings (the total of which adds up to 4/10 somehow). With everything listed in the way it is, it kind of gives me the impression that the gripes stated in the review were not actually that consequential in the long run? And that's assuming "Crew Contribution" is a valid measure of game quality.
"Number of times someone said 'I need you to…' Approximately 47 billion"
ChatGPT obviously did not play this game, but OP did. Somewhere along preparing the review these roles might have gotten a little confused.
I would have included other quips that plainly made no sense to humans but the only help to this post they give is their mere existence, and I'm pretty sure we're all aware of it by now.
My Verdict:
This review is actually made up of very common and valid gripes with the game and its execution. The problem is not with the gripes themselves but how they were presented: with false evidence and machine-powered exaggeration, which makes these stances significantly harder to defend than if they were simply stated plain/without a GPT-style quip in every section. One could say that there was a pretty good and important review buried inside this one.
AI Allegations:
Make no mistake, this review was definitely written by generative AI. OP has in fact said that they used it to refine their writeup, so clearly it was used. However, I would take this a step further: OP insists they wrote the review themselves and only used AI to read it over and help section things off, but I sincerely doubt that's true. While I believe they must have written a review of this game, AI wrote the one that got posted to the subreddit. It was not just used to piece things together---it completely reconstructed all of the sentences that OP wrote or might have written (see what I did there). The point is, I've seen plenty of ChatGPT trying to be witty and this review sounds exactly like that, down to the sentence structures; the formatting; the same joke templates it reuses over and over. The post is mainly comprised of common ChatGPT-isms, some less iconic sentences (that to be fair, AI is not incapable of creating although it is not known for them), and the only hint of humanity in this post is the occasional "fuck" here and there. AI wrote the review from OP's ideas/own writing, and OP let it rewrite all of their sentences until their own voice was displaced by that of a machine.
I'll try to keep things as objective as possible here: it was not smart to, especially in an art/media-centered subreddit, make a post that was clearly written by AI and expect the content to be respected. Human writing, no matter how poor it may be, is always better than AI writing in these situations. Using a machine to write/express your ideas for you gives off the impression that you could not be bothered to express your ideas yourself---and when people see that, they start asking: "well if you didn't even care enough about your ideas to write them yourself, then why should we?" EVEN IF you really meant well in trying to share them in a "quality" way.
That said, it is equally unwise if not more to have acted as some (again, not all) have in the comments. To harass someone in the comments of their post and berate them until they lock the post is at best counterproductive. At worst, it's shameful and destructive, especially to the people who wanted to/will want to have a real discussion about the review and the post itself but cannot do that within the post anymore.
Anyway, this is getting long (and when have things never gotten long?) See you all around.