I was really disappointed by this game, and, given the tone of some other criticism, I want to be clear about why. I like stories in which social problems like discrimination, gender and poverty play a major role, but I didnt like a single thing about this one, and for me that comes down to the author not being able to portray any of these things with any subtlety.
This isnt me saying "Be queer more quietly." This is me saying, "Its weird, heavy-handed and dehumanizing to define every single character by their demographic traits instead of their personality." I am a gay woman with a mental illness that affects my daily life, and my social circle mostly consists of people who check one or both of those boxes, but not one of us spends every waking moment immersed in The Discourse the way the characters in this game do. A character like The Bear, whose entire thing is being - well, a bear - would be really offensive if written by a straight person, and even though I know Zachary Sergi is not straight, that kind of simplistic, reductive characterization is endemic to this game. Its kind of the Ryan Murphy approach to diversity: including a large roster of different identities, but then reducing those characters down to token traits and ideological functions instead of real people ultimately doesnt accomplish anything positive. I’d say the same thing about incorporating something as complex as social acceptance/awareness of [whatever group] as a meter on the status screen. For lack of a better word, it’s tacky.
This is a problem that extends far beyond identity politics. Characters say exactly what theyre thinking and sum up their personal stories and motivations as though they know the player is watching from another dimension. Some of it is justifiable in that reality show contestants are encouraged to package themselves a certain way for the camera, but a lot of it is just not how human beings behave. And there are a lot of other small examples of the when-all-you-have-is-a-hammer approach to narrative — probably the most obvious is the repeated “Bootylicious” joke. It’s not enough to make the joke once. The text then has to explain the joke. Then it needs to be made again. And again. And then as the last line of the main story.
Other reviewers have commented on the railroading, which is an issue in all of this writer’s games; there are very obvious right and wrong paths, as far as the author is concerned, and the text will guilt you for picking the wrong one.
I really enjoyed playing the original Heroes Rise series a few summers ago. I was living in a pretty bad situation at the time, and Sergi’s games made me smile a lot when few other things did. Because of those happy memories, I gave this game a chance even though I also disliked Versus for some of the same reasons: a lot of telling instead of showing, railroading, weird self-conscious branding, and a story that seems to exist to set up other stories rather than a complete narrative in itself. (I would compare this unfavorably to The Prodigy, which has a beginning — you want to be a real hero — middle — you face obstacles — and end — you are recognized for your heroism and defeat Prodigal — to its central narrative that also sets up possible future adventures. Versus and Redemption Season only seem to be about laying groundwork. It’s like ending The Hunger Games after Rue dies.) But I was also disappointed by this, so I will probably not be buying any more of this writer’s games.