Life Is Strange Double Exposure: Simply Disappointing

Summary

In this candid and critical review of *Life is Strange: Double Exposure*, the reviewer expresses deep disappointment with the game's plot, characters, and technical performance. Despite being a fan of the franchise, they regret spending extra money on Early Access for a game that lacks the emotional impact and meaningful choices of its predecessors. The story, which centers around a murder mystery, fails to live up to expectations, with underdeveloped characters and a poorly handled relationship between Max and Chloe. The graphics are praised, but performance issues arise due to the switch to Unreal Engine 5. Ultimately, the reviewer strongly advises against purchasing the game.

Takeaways

• 😀 The reviewer feels the $30 extra paid for early access to *Life is Strange: Double Exposure* was a waste, as it only unlocked two short chapters, which were underwhelming.
• 😀 The pricing and marketing strategy of the game, particularly the Early Access model, is criticized as borderline exploitative, with minimal content offered in exchange for a high price.
• 😀 The plot of *Double Exposure* had a strong premise (murder mystery with alternate timelines), but ultimately faltered due to poor narrative development and a weak, unsatisfying ending.
• 😀 One of the biggest disappointments was the way the relationship between Max and Chloe was handled, as it ignored the emotional weight established in previous games.
• 😀 The game's approach to player choice, a hallmark of the *Life is Strange* series, felt meaningless, with most choices being trivial (e.g., deciding what Max wears).
• 😀 The post-chapter 2 gameplay felt more like watching cutscenes and listening to lifeless dialogue rather than being an active participant in the story.
• 😀 Some characters, like Moses, had potential but were sidelined or neglected after the early chapters, reducing their impact on the overall narrative.
• 😀 The character of Safi is criticized for being selfish and destructive, causing more harm than good to the plot and other characters, with no real redemption arc.
• 😀 The setting, Kaladan University, felt lifeless and uninteresting compared to Arcadia Bay, lacking the depth and emotional connection players had with previous locations.
• 😀 Although the game's visuals were a clear improvement, the switch to Unreal Engine 5 resulted in poor performance and optimization issues, leading to lag and technical problems.
• 😀 Despite the criticisms, the reviewer appreciated Max's character, highlighting her growth and consistency, which provided a reason to continue playing, but the overall game fell short.

Q & A

Why does the reviewer feel the need to make this video despite knowing it might not do well?

The reviewer feels compelled to make this video to express frustration about *Life is Strange: Double Exposure*, particularly after spending extra money on early access and feeling that the game was a significant letdown.

What was the reviewer’s issue with the pricing and early access of the game?

The reviewer regrets paying an additional $30 for early access to only two chapters, feeling that it was a waste of money. They criticize Square Enix's marketing strategy, calling it borderline criminal, especially since the extra content was minimal.

How does the reviewer compare *Life is Strange: Double Exposure* to previous entries in the series?

The reviewer finds *Double Exposure* lacking compared to earlier games in the *Life is Strange* series, especially in terms of writing, passion, and overall narrative quality. The contrast between the game and the original *Life is Strange* is described as night and day.

What did the reviewer think about the game's plot and narrative?

The reviewer feels that the plot of *Double Exposure* is full of wasted potential, with underwhelming subplots and a poorly handled murder mystery. They express disappointment with how the narrative strayed from its core focus.

What specific criticism does the reviewer have about Chloe Price's role in the game?

The reviewer feels that Chloe Price's character was mishandled in *Double Exposure*, as the game essentially erases her from Max’s life, offering only minimal references instead of exploring the unresolved trauma and connection between the two characters.

How does the reviewer feel about the choices in the game?

The reviewer criticizes the choices in *Double Exposure* as being largely inconsequential, with no real impact on the narrative. They mention that the choices are shallow, such as deciding what Max will wear, which detracts from the emotional engagement of previous *Life is Strange* titles.

What does the reviewer think about the character development and writing in the game?

The reviewer finds the character writing to be inconsistent and often lacking depth. Some characters, like Moses, are well-handled early on, but later neglected, while others, like Safi and Vin, are poorly developed and fail to contribute meaningfully to the plot.

How does the reviewer describe the setting of the game?

The reviewer finds the setting of Kaladan University uninspiring and forgettable, lacking the charm and emotional attachment that earlier settings like Arcadia Bay had. They express indifference towards the university and the surrounding town, which doesn’t evoke any emotional connection.

What are the reviewer’s thoughts on the technical performance of the game?

The reviewer criticizes the game’s performance, particularly after the switch to Unreal Engine 5, which they feel led to optimization issues. Despite good visuals, the game’s performance suffers, especially in larger, more open areas, leading to frustration.

How does the reviewer feel about the overall quality of *Life is Strange: Double Exposure*?

The reviewer considers *Double Exposure* one of the most disappointing games of 2024, feeling it squandered its potential with weak writing, underdeveloped characters, and poor technical execution. They do not recommend the game and feel it doesn't live up to the legacy of the series.