Co-op

Tick Tock: A Tale for Two

Tick Tock: A Tale for Two

An observation of Solomon

Much like a baby’s fascination with an electrical socket, Solomon sought cooperative multiplayer games despite their tendency to cause unfortunate circumstances for him and those he loved. He enjoyed the concept of teamwork, friendship, and all the other Care Bear flavors, yet they were less fun in practice. His partners rarely thought or acted like he did, and he couldn’t ignore their mistakes like he did his own. In his perfect world, his team would simply obey all of his orders. After all, nothing could rival the cooperation between a dictator and his subjects.

His wife similarly enjoyed co-op games and had learned to adapt to the Solomon brand of teamwork. While he obsessively pursued results (the three-star ratings and the obscure collectibles), she enjoyed the experience and interaction. He could pretend to lead his team to victory, and she would play the game as intended. In this sense, they formed a symbiotic relationship, with Solomon firmly taking the role of Player 1 and her joining him as Player 2. This tenuous but established relationship held for seven years. Only Tick Tock: A Tale for Two could crack the foundation, revealing the one-man shitshow that they had ignored for all those years.

What is it?

Tick Tock requires two devices—be it a Switch, tablet, computer, or smart refrigerator—and two copies of the game.  Upon launching, the game will prompt the players to select either “Player 1” and “Player 2.”  No local or online connection is necessary because the game progresses purely through the information the two players provide each other.  The game instructs players to not look at each other’s screen unless they get stuck.  Being a screen looker, Solomon took this as a challenge and a headache.  His wife was simply happy that the game allowed her to choose her nickname, “Player 2.”

Each player has one half of a point-and-click adventure game along with half of the story.  Both will visit the same locations, yet they’ll find different clues.  For instance, one puzzle tasks the players with completing radio news alerts, matching one half of the message on one screen with the other half on the other screen.  Numbers, dates, or locations concealed in the messages are then used to access another part of the game.  Essentially, a clue for one player allows the other player to progress and find the next clue, playing out like a mental three-legged race.  During his first play-through with his wife, Solomon felt both players were necessary components of a wholly unique game.  In his second playthrough, he played by himself – controlling both screens – and came to realize the game could abandon the second person altogether and fit on the two screens on a DS instead.

Outside of the puzzling, Tick Tock presents a world in which watchmakers fiddle with time as much as they do wheels and screws.  One such watchmaker, Amalie, invites both players to play a game, one which she made for her sister, Laerke.  A newspaper article reporting Laerke’s disappearance serves as the clue to the first puzzle which, once solved, sends both players back in time to the sisters’ quaint hometown.  In this town, pets and other animals go missing or are found dead.  Although conveyed only in bits and pieces through clues, the plot is predictable, much like this story of Solomon and his wife.

What’s good?

  1. The puzzles require a different strategy to solve them. Most cooperative puzzle games can be commandeered by one player ordering the others through the solution. If played as intended, Tick Tock demands players to share equal power in order to progress, to cooperate in sharing information.  Solomon did not play Tick Tock as it was intended. He tried to wrestle power from his wife, delivering blind commands which were rarely accurate or relevant. She protested frequently, but Solomon had the ability to protest more loudly.
  2. Although thin in detail, the story provided enough mystery to sustain Solomon’s interest.  He fell for the time gimmick, intrigued by how Amalie played with time like a wanton mistress, manipulating it to her gain.  It was not lost on him how Amalie did the same with her sister, how she pushed her values and experiments on Laerke with little regard to her feelings or complaints.  That he was doing the same to his wife as they played, conversely, was lost on him entirely.

What’s bad?

  1. Neither control option (control stick/buttons or touch screen) worked as intuitively as one would expect for a point-and-click game.  In an effort to direct his growing frustration with the game away from his wife, he jokingly complained how sluggishly the screens transitioned, how pieces would not respond to his swipes.  When complaining eased into irritated bitching, his wife encouraged him to calm down, and his anger erupted back onto her, accusing her of overreacting. 
  2. The puzzles become repetitive, leading to a bloated third act.  His wife pleaded with him to take a break, to come back to the game another day.  He refused.  He escorted her as they pieced together messages again, looked for subtle numbers and dates again, and wandered the same four locations again.  He also wanted to stop.  He knew he wasn’t controlling himself, but his neuroticism drove him to finish the game.  If he could finish it, he would have closure which meant he and his wife would have closure.  They could laugh later and discuss what they had liked.  He could focus his hatred on the game instead of suffocating her with his fumes.  He would never have to touch the damned game again. 

What’s up to your preferences?

  1. The puzzles require relatively little action apart from sharing information.  Apart from one puzzle which requires sharing information at a fast pace, Tick Tock never strays from its call-and-answer gameplay.  Some may like the focus, how the developer’s experimented with one concept.  Solomon loathed it, loathed how the same gameplay loop rested on his worsening communication with his wife.  He snapped at her, chided her for describing things inaccurately, criticized for not understanding his descriptions.

She begged to stop again.  She tried to convince him neither of them knew how to solve the next puzzle nor had the emotional stability to make the game a positive experience.  He told her to play better. 

She started crying, letting her Switch to fall into her lap as he watched her back.  His anger ripped through his brain, clinging onto any fuel to blame his wife, paint her as the problem.  He did not want this to be about him.  He pleaded for it to be anyone’s fault but his.  However, as petty as he was, he was not stupid.  He could recognize who was responsible. 

He mumbled an apology, following it with an explanation to excuse his actions.  He tickled her back, giving her time to relax as he looked up answers online.  He stopped touching her once he had found the answer.  With one more apology, he instructed her to keep playing.

  1. The game is short, lasting between one and two hours.  With no variation between play-throughs, there is little reason to play again other than for the story.  For many, Tick Tock will feel like a demo, largely because the developers could have included more variety in the gameplay.  Others will appreciate being able to complete the game in one sitting.  For Solomon and his wife, the game was far too long at 100 minutes.  Solomon had obtained his closure, just as he had hoped, and that closure took the familiar form of regret and shame.  He could not stand to look in her eyes.

What’s the verdict?

Tick Tock: A Tale for Two could be jokingly described as one of those games that test the strength of one’s relationship, like Lovers in a Dangerous Spacetime and Snipperclips. None of those games actually test relationships, and for most gaming duos, Tick Tock will be passingly enjoyable. It just didn’t work for Solomon. Did he ruin a great game with his pettiness and his anger? No. Even if Solomon had behaved, Tick Tock would never be a great game and would eventually be forgotten. But Solomon did ruin a game, and now, neither he nor his wife will forget it.

Arbitrary Statistics:

  • Score:  7
  • Time Played:  100 minutes together the first time, 64 minutes alone the second
  • Number of Players:  2
  • Games Like It on Switch:  Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes, Unravel 2

Scoring Policy

Posted by Solomon Rambling in Review, 0 comments
Think of the Children

Think of the Children

Problem Child

Although my father proudly calls me a mistake, most parents will say their kids were the best thing that ever happened to them. You can see that appreciative glimmer in their eyes. You’ll also probably notice the garbage bags under their eyes, the gray clawing at their hair, and the dad guts and mom handles overtaking their abdomens. They brag about the perks of parenthood while Timmy vomits McNuggets in the corner and Annabelle finger-paints on the walls, using her dirty diaper as her artist’s palette. Children are the hope of our future and the torture of our present. They’re gifts from God, who happens to be a total asshat.

The joys of parenthood have been sorely underrepresented in video games, but developer Fellow Traveler has filled this hole in our collective womb with Think of the Children. Geared for four-player co-op party mayhem, the game subjects you to all the horrors of raising children who have no survival instincts or respect for your authority. What about the joy of parenting?  Fellow Travelers forgot to program it or hates children. There are no blessings to be had here, just crotch gremlins.

What is it?

Think of the Children plays a bit like Overcooked. You and up to three others must keep six children alive for a set amount of time. Each stage hides all manner of deadly creatures and traps to prey on your children, and your kids flock to them like they vacant sheep they are. To thwart their deaths, you can pick them up and carry them elsewhere or yell at them to follow you. You know, just like Grandpa used to.

Each child can mess with a hazard for a certain amount of time, causing a warning sign to pop over their heads. Wait too long, and they’ll be dispatched unceremoniously. Children can die, and each corpse impacts your score once the time runs out. Side missions and your children’s happiness also add points, but the game gives you no indication how to do the latter. If your score equals a C- or higher, you unlock the next stage and a cosmetic item.

The game offers two modes: Story and Party. Story mode guides you as you try to prove your competence as a parent to a judge and jury, combining the utter anguish of losing custodial rights with the slapstick humor of a 90’s sitcom. Party mode offers the exact same ten stages—which still must be unlocked in order—but without the overarching narrative. It’s like a restaurant serving quesadillas and grilled cheese tortillas: they’re the same damn thing, but the two different names make the menu look better.

What’s good?

  1. The story injects some humor into an otherwise sobering experience. It jokingly attempts to make sense of the game’s nonsensical settings and the high child death count, dabbling in some dark humor while maintaining Looney Toons-esque mania. The gags can skew a little too absurd, but so do mine, so criticizing this humor is like trying to hurt my reflection by shoving a fork up my own nose.
Hilarious.

What’s bad?

  1. Think of the Children depicts parenting as pain and suffering, no matter the number of players. As a single parent, raising six kids is nearly impossible, so it will take a small miracle to get a passing grade on any stage. With two parents, avoiding Child Protective Services is possible, but levels are nonstop stress fests. When bumping up to three or four parents, the stress shifts to boredom. Each player gets their own quadrant to babysit, and as long as everyone cares for the children in their area, you’ll achieve the top score. As such, Think of the Children never finds the right amounts of chaos and strategy to spark fun.
  2. The controls are about as unreliable as child support checks. Although you may intend to grab a child drinking bleach, you may instead snatch the child harmlessly drinking vodka or you may grab nothing at all. Sometimes, children will flock to you from across the stage when you yell, but they’ll struggle to hear you as you bellow directly into their ears. Despite all of my practice, I still haven’t figured how to throw children consistently either, and now, I’m banned from all public parks.
  3. The final level is practically unplayable. Unlike the other stages, this one has multiple parts, including rooms which will kill you if you don’t complete an objective in time. A separate timer also counts down to your death, and with excruciatingly slow auto-scroll sections, time will often end you. Bugs plague the level as well, causing you to fall through solid floors, get stuck behind objects, and be unable to interact with context-sensitive items. Even with three people, I couldn’t overcome the bugs, so I aborted Think of the Children right then and there and haven’t regretted it since.
  4. The voxel graphics are both uninspired and a hindrance to gameplay. I have never liked the blocky aesthetic, largely because – outside of Minecraft – the graphics typically seem devoid of character or distinctive features. With Think of the Children, everything is a broken mess of cubes, so it can be difficult to distinguish between your children or certain objects from the background.
  5. Think of the Children lingers barely longer than short-term memory. I recognize my hatred has severely limited my playtime, but the game offers so little. Apart from unlocking aesthetic features, you only have the ten stages, most of which last no longer than a few minutes. You could strive for a local high score, but why? You’re better off parenting your real-life children or planning your or your partner’s vasectomy.

What’s the verdict?

Think of the Children functions best as a form of birth control. If child-rearing happened to be as ugly, stressful, boring, and buggy as it is depicted in this game, teen pregnancy and unsafe sex would be nonexistent, like Solomon Jr. after that kitchen fire he started.  At best, Think of the Children is a poor approximation of Overcooked, perfectly emulating the chaos of cooperation without programming any of the payoff and originality. Unless you enjoy running around with your head cut off, I suggest the best way to enjoy Think of the Children is through abstinence.

Arbitrary Statistics:

Scoring Policy

Posted by Solomon Rambling in Review, 0 comments
Snipperclips: Cut It Out, Together!

Snipperclips: Cut It Out, Together!

When Cutting Your Friends Is Appropriate

With the Switch being almost two years old now, its launch week now induces some nostalgia. Back then, the size and portability of the console amazed me. I actually played in portable mode occasionally. I had hope for a Virtual Console and a solid online system (may both dreams rest in peace). The eShop had yet to drown in its own games and inadequacies. I didn’t even have enough games to fill the main menu.

Initially, I only owned three games: Breath of the Wild, Super Bomberman R, and Snipperclips. Zelda was and is a masterpiece, breathing life into me after so many hard years with the Wii U. Bomberman just kind of sucked. Neither of those games emphasized the novelty of the Switch, but Snipperclips showed just how cool it was to hand a Joy-Con at a friend and play anywhere, at any time. At launch, Snipperclips stood out as a must-have for co-op gamers, and to this day, it continues to rank as one of the best multiplayer games on the system.

What is it?

Snipperclips is a cooperative puzzle game in which your solutions depend on your characters’ shapes. Snip and Clip (short for Snippery and Clarence, respectively) begin each single-screen level shaped like bullets. They can overlap each other and cut away the covered section with the A button. Using the shoulder buttons, they can rotate their bodies, and the Y button allows them to undo a recent cut or return to their original shapes. If they lose too much of their body matter, however, they die of blood loss and respawn.

Each of the game’s 45 levels poses a different challenge, requiring you to create specific shapes out of Snip and Clip. Some task you and your partner to fill a stenciled shape. Others ask you to move or escort an object from point A to point B. Most puzzles can be tackled in different ways, yet you’ll often find yourself sculpting your paper characters into ramps, sharp points, hooks, containers, and phallic objects. Completing challenges will open up new ones, and beating those allows you to progress through the game’s three worlds.

Apart from the two-player mode, Snipperclips features a batch of levels designed for up to four players, introducing Snip and Clip’s inbred siblings, Snop and Clop. These challenges tend to be more complex given the fact that all four players contribute to the overall solution. The game also includes three minigames (under the umbrella of a “Blitz” mode) which provide a reprieve from the brain-teasing puzzles. You can play basketball, hockey, or participate in death match to cut each other into scraps.

What’s good?

  1. The puzzles will tease your brain in a whole new way, much like a stroke. Identifying the solution is much easier than executing it.  Each player must act precisely and as a team in order to succeed, and this system prevents gameplay from devolving into one person telling everyone else what to do.
  2. Snipperclips achieves accessibility without dumbing down gameplay. The controls are simple, and puzzles primarily focus on creating shapes, a skill we have honed since preschool and later failed to understand in geometry. With multiple solutions and little penalty for messing up, the puzzles can be tackled by anyone. On top of this, because you have a buddy, the two of you can make up for whatever the other person lacks, just like true love or co-dependency.
  3. The game bleeds cuteness and character. Our two main heroes respond to each snip and cut with silly expressions, whether it’s slight bewilderment, anxious agony, or murderous glee. The environments look like they came from the scrapbooks of a style-savvy kindergartner. Colors pop, and the soundtrack (while at times annoying) creates a tone of innocent fanfare.
They call this “origami.”

What’s bad?

  1. The puzzles can be redundant, especially those which ask you to fill a stenciled shape.  Most ideas aren’t used more than twice, but general mechanics (such as becoming cogs) appear in a number of levels.  Snipperclips is so darn creative, so I can’t help but think the developers could’ve produced more variety in their missions.  Just don’t look to me for ideas.
  2. The Blitz modes are about as fun as being Belgium in World War II.  Basketball and hockey are theoretically good past times, but just like the latter sport, most games become focused on physically destroying the opposing team.  Because everyone will fixate on cutting each other, baskets or goals will feel coincidental rather than intentional.  All told, these modes may occupy 10-15 minutes of your time.
  3. Solo players should avoid the game because you can’t spell “co-op” with “crippling loneliness.”  This isn’t really a criticism from me, although other reviewers somehow think a cooperative video game meant for two or more players needs a solo mode.  I know the Switch is starved for single-player experiences, but Snipperclips need not address this problem.

In regards to Snipperclips Plus

The DLC comes with two new worlds (comprised on 30 levels), a smattering of four-players puzzles, and three Blitz games. It’s all very much more of the same, so if you liked Snipperclips, the DLC is just more gravy on the gravy, and let me tell you, I love gravy. However, no matter how much gravy you add, it will still only taste like gravy, so don’t expect the DLC to introduce any game-changing mechanics like corn.

What’s the verdict?

You’d be forgiven for thinking Snipperclips is a Nintendo-developed game, considering its clean presentation, whimsical gameplay, and sheer inventiveness.  This is an achievement for indie developer SFB Games because they managed to present a launch title which made 1-2-Switch look like a worthless third-party product.  Apart from those who abhor human company, anybody can enjoy Snipperclips.  If you’re still hesitant, get the demo, test the game, like it, buy it, and murder your friends.  It truly captures what makes the Switch special.

Arbitrary Statistics:

  • Score:  8.5
  • Time Played:  Over 10 hours
  • Number of Players:  1-4
  • Games Like It on Switch:  Human:  Fall Flat, Death Squared

Scoring Policy

Posted by Solomon Rambling in Review, 0 comments
Neurovoider

Neurovoider

Party Like it’s Past the End of the World

Cooperative play is the French fries of the gaming world.  A single-player campaign or other multiplayer component serves as the main feature—the hamburger, if you will—while co-op is seen as complimentary.  Sometimes French fries and co-op are simply filler, meant to pad the main attraction, as you will find with many fast food joints or Mario + Rabbids.  Other times, they can fail to even be filler, like with Binding of Isaac.  Then you have poutine fries, a calorie juggernaut that laughs at main dishes.  The gaming equivalent of those gravy-laden sticks of love are Overcooked! and Lovers in a Dangerous Spacetime.

Neurovoider created a solid hamburger completely overshadowed by its French fries. Not many rogue-lites nail cooperative play. Oftentimes, adding a second player acts as a hindrance rather than help. In Neurovoider, co-op retains the complexity, firefights, and challenge found in single-player while emphasizing the strategic components of team play. Once you and your partners nail down the intricacies of the game, you’ll function like a well-greased diner.

What is it?

Neurovoider touts itself as a twin-stick shooter RPG with rogue-lite elements, which is true as long as RPG stands for “Rogue-Plite Game.” You have 20 levels to overcome (sprinkled with four boss battles), and permadeath robs you of all progress. The difficulty level may not reach the heights of Enter the Gungeon or Crypt of the Necrodancer, but you’ll experience a fair share of premature deaths before reaching the game’s climax.  As you blast through masses of robots, you collect a scrap heap of better weapons and parts to soup up your mechanized warrior.

Each play-through prompts you to select one of three brain-powered robots: a petite model with dash capabilities, a medium build able to unleash its weapons at increased fire rates, or a large machine capable of invincibility at the price of mobility and firing ability. Each robot sports two guns which deplete your EP when fired. Your EP gradually refills over time, but if you completely exhaust your energy, you’ll be unable to fire until you bot cools down. As such, your fights will play out as a series of attacks and retreats as you manage your reserves.

You complete a level when you destroy all reactors on the map. After this, you are transported to a menu screen where you can upgrade your character. Based on the items you grabbed from dead enemies, you can switch your head, body, legs, and guns for better parts and then sell any weaker items for scrap. This currency can then buy health, random better gear, or upgrades to your current load-out. In multiplayer, you can share items with each other, which proves vital as each of you will pick up parts that may not work for your model but will fit your partner’s.

Once you’ve finished this, you’re booted to a level select with three options, each with different stats in regards to size, elites, and loot. Big maps offer more chances to kill enemies for upgrades. The large elite robots can take and deal more damage but pack a ton of loot, so stages bursting with them can obliterate you or make you beefy. Loot corresponds to the likelihood of receiving better items, and only a full loot stat yields the possibility of the highly-lethal glitched weapons. At times, you’ll encounter special stages based around a certain theme (i.e. time limits, all elites, darkness) which grant a level-skip token upon completion.

In single-player, if you die, an evil copy of that robot will appear in your next run. Like in my everyday life, the past comes back to haunt you.

What’s good?

  1. Behind the simple twin-stick shooter gameplay lies a significant amount of customization and strategy. In addition to your robot model, you can choose one of 27 chips (abilities like healing, increased damage, and extra lives) to alter your run.  The stages you select can also determine your later success, and sometimes the best choice is to reroll the stages or skip a level entirely.  You may find a glitched weapon capable of wiping out the entire screen, but your build may not have the EP necessary to sustain such firepower.  Your success often relies on your understanding of the game’s mechanics as opposed to pure skill alone.
  2. To the surprise of no one who read my introduction, the couch co-op enhances the overall game. Three is the magic number, allowing each player to select a different build.  This approach encourages each player to take a specific role, be it the long-range explosive expert, the kamikaze physical fighter, or an EP tank capable of sustaining fire.  With these builds, no items go to waste, and the team can keep trucking even if one player suddenly dies.  Combined with the drama and passive aggression of kinship, multiplayer helps to reduce the sting of bad RNG or abrupt difficulty spikes.
  3. Neurovoider features an impressive art style and soundtrack. Considering I’ve written some 10 reviews praising this aspect of a game, I’ve lost all ability to explain exactly what makes good visuals and music.  Suffice to say Neurovoider utilizes only the most exquisite pixels and foot-stompingly good bleeps and bloops.

What’s bad?

  1. The pacing can make for exhaustingly long runs. The average run clocks around an hour for an experienced solo player and significantly longer for newbies and couch co-op.  At least a quarter of your time is spent on customization screens, and individual levels can drag out with poor builds.  Combat also favors players who retreat while firing, and rushing forward almost always ends in death.  As if to spite our free time, multiplayer doesn’t even have a save feature, so if you want the pleasure of teamwork, you better devote an afternoon to the orgy or never play another game again.
  2. Like in a bleach-drinking contest, death can be unfair, sudden, and unexpected. You could sport the fanciest of parts and weapons, but a single boss or group of elites can utterly ravage you in seconds, flinging you to the first level.  Death and rogue-lites go hand-in-hand like co-dependent sociopaths, but when bad luck murders you instead of lack of skill, my salt cup runneth over.
  3. Without any unlockable content, the game’s longevity is determined by how quickly you can beat the final boss and how much you enjoy it to play again. After about ten hours, I experienced just about as much variety the game had to offer.  This may satiate some, but compared to the content offered by Isaac or Dead Cells, Neurovoider feels sparse.

What’s the verdict?

Although I have touched upon some rough spots, Neurovoider serves up a solid and fun experience, be it the French fries or hamburger.  I don’t often find people willing to be in a threesome with me, but when I do, I try to sneak in at least half a game of Neurovoider.  The Switch has several co-op and rogue-lite games worth your money and time, and this one certainly justifies your attention if you’ve already rocked through the likes of Isaac, Overcooked 2, Enter the Gungeon, and Snipperclips.  No matter how tiring a singular run can be, I never found myself close to being bored.

Arbitrary Statistics:

  • Score: 8
  • Time Played: Over 10 hours
  • Number of Players: 1-4
  • Games Like It on Switch: Enter the Gungeon, Tallowmere

Scoring Policy

Posted by Solomon Rambling in Review, 0 comments