Months later, I still donít know how to judge the game. Is it a masterful and cunning improvement on modern shooters, or a short, dumbed-down bastardization of its predecessor? Itís kind of both.
I will give the game credit for this: The story worked. This should not be praise. This should be the most basic, obvious accomplishment that a game can achieve. This should be like saying of a restaurant, ďThe food was cooked.Ē But as Fallout 3, Assassinís Creed 2, and Fable 2, and many other games have shown, game designers canít seem to keep even the most simple plots from falling apart into contradictory nonsense, and they canít devise characters with any sort of coherent motivation. Yes, there were parts of Human Revolution I could nitpick. (And the boss characters were unforgivably horrible.) But on balance the writers managed to create a world that was both complicated (by videogame standards) and sensible. There were many sides to the conflict, they each had a unique viewpoint, and none of them were mustache-twirling ďEVUL FOR TEH LULZ!Ē (Again, aside from the Boss Villains. I make no excuse for them. They were just shameful, and felt like they were grafted in from a much dumber game. The point is, the factions made sense and had interesting things to say.)