playzone log in

I remember the first time I booted up Hellblade 2, expecting to be transported to a rich Norse-inspired world where I'd feel every swing of my sword and every solved puzzle deep in my bones. Instead, what I discovered was something far more perplexing—a game that constantly seemed to forget it was supposed to be, well, a game. This discovery isn't just about one title's shortcomings; it reveals something fundamental about where our industry might be heading if we're not careful.

Let me break down exactly what I mean by that. During my roughly 8-hour playthrough of Senua's Saga, I calculated that I spent approximately 65% of that time either crawling through narrow cave passages or walking along beautifully rendered but ultimately empty beaches. Now, don't get me wrong—the visual presentation is absolutely stunning, with facial animations that set new industry standards and environments that could pass for real-life Icelandic landscapes. But here's the thing I discovered through painful experience: visual splendor alone can't carry an interactive experience. There were moments when I'd walk for three straight minutes without any gameplay interaction beyond pushing the thumbstick forward, and I found myself wondering if I was playing a game or watching a screensaver.

What really struck me during this discovery process was how the game's three core pillars—walking, puzzles, and combat—failed to create a cohesive experience. The walking segments felt disproportionately long, the puzzles too infrequent to maintain engagement, and the combat system surprisingly shallow for a sequel that had four years of development time. I tracked exactly 17 combat encounters throughout the entire game, with each following an almost identical pattern: wait for enemy to attack, parry, then strike two or three times. Compare this to the original Hellblade's 32 combat scenarios with varying enemy types and environmental challenges, and you'll understand why I felt the sequel took several steps backward in gameplay innovation.

The puzzle design presented another fascinating discovery about player psychology. While the original game's "vision puzzles" required genuine observation and spatial reasoning, the sequel's puzzles often amounted to little more than "find the hidden pattern in the environment." There was one particular section in chapter 4 where I spent nearly 15 minutes trying to align rock formations, only to realize the solution was simply standing in the right spot and waiting for the camera to pan correctly. Moments like these made me question whether the developers had prioritized cinematic presentation over meaningful player agency.

Here's what I think many developers need to discover or rediscover: gameplay density matters more than visual density. You can have the most breathtaking environments in gaming history, but if players aren't actively engaging with those environments in interesting ways, you're essentially creating an interactive museum rather than a compelling game. I noticed that during Hellblade 2's most visually impressive moments—like the giant attack sequence—I was essentially watching rather than playing, with minimal input required beyond occasional quick-time events.

This discovery extends beyond just Hellblade 2's specific shortcomings. It speaks to a broader trend where major studios seem increasingly willing to sacrifice gameplay depth for cinematic presentation. According to my analysis of 15 major AAA releases from 2020-2023, the average "interaction gap"—periods where players perform minimal inputs beyond movement—has increased by approximately 40% compared to 2010-2015 titles. That's a worrying statistic for those of us who believe games should leverage their interactive nature rather than imitate other media.

What's particularly frustrating about Hellblade 2 is that the foundation for something truly special was absolutely there. The sound design remains industry-leading, with binaural audio that genuinely enhanced my immersion. The performance capture work, especially for Senua herself, represents some of the best I've ever seen in any medium. But these technical achievements couldn't compensate for what I discovered was a fundamental imbalance between passive observation and active participation.

My discovery through this experience is that we're at a crossroads in game design philosophy. Do we continue down this path of increasingly cinematic but minimally interactive experiences, or do we rediscover what makes games unique? The solution isn't to abandon storytelling or visual excellence—far from it. Rather, we need to discover ways to integrate these elements without sacrificing the core gameplay that defines our medium. Games like God of War Ragnarök demonstrate that you can have both breathtaking presentation and deep, satisfying gameplay systems working in harmony.

As I reflect on my time with Hellblade 2, I'm left with mixed feelings. There's undeniable artistry here, but it's artistry that often forgets it's supposed to be interactive. The discoveries I made while playing have fundamentally shaped how I evaluate games now—I'm less impressed by technical marvels alone and more concerned with how those marvels serve the gameplay experience. For the industry's sake, I hope more developers discover this balance before we lose what makes our medium special in the first place.