I’ve been pondering the nature of sequels, specifically sequels to games that didn’t really leave a mark on anyone but weren’t exactly bad. The Surge, released back in 2017, is one such game, the purgatorial 7/10 that didn’t blow anyone’s skirt up but it was still a pretty decent experience. So my question was when making a sequel to something like The Surge would it pay off to just fix those issues?

The Surge had some great ideas, but their execution wasn’t always pot-on. The environment around you was duller than small talk, enemies frequently repeated their actions and the weapons available were limited in their design. In The Surge 2, it looks like Deck 13 has gone to town on fixing a lot of the criticism that followed in the wake of the first game’s launch.

Deck 13’s The Surge was…an entirely decent game. Wearing its Soulsborne inspiration on its mechanical sleeve, it was a flawed, but ultimately enjoyable action RPG. Now there's going to be a The Surge 2.

It seems that Lords of the Fallen 2, which would have had an increase in scope has had that scope reduced. The team working on it has sadly also been hit with layoffs.

The Surge is a flawed but ultimately enjoyable action RPG. While it can be incredibly frustrating at times, the fantastic combat and body part targeting system does enough to overshadow the bad parts.

Who decided when games bevome "Game of the year," and why are middling games being given that accolade?

Demon's Souls and its follow up Dark Souls have spawned a gbere of copycats. HGere's on of them, Lords of the Fallen.