I know that basically every game reviewer has beaten this point into the ground, but until every up-and-coming indie developer says it to themselves a hundred times before going to sleep, I’m going to keep saying it: interesting visuals don’t elevate a mediocre game. They elevate a good game, sure, but if your game is just a basic, barebones addendum to the beautiful art style you’ve come up with, then what you’re making isn’t a game – it’s a cleverly disguised waste of everyone’s time and money.
Figment is as good an example as any for this problem. If you’re thinking of buying it, chances are you like the art style, but some part of you must also expect it to be an interesting game, right? Surely nothing that looks this pretty and creative could be boring and derivative. There’s no way that you could know that the gameplay mechanics and puzzle design are underdeveloped and directionless, with the level of depth in combat and exploration of many early PlayStation 1 titles, right?
I think that’s really all I can say about Figment. It’s a video game, technically, with gameplay, and if that and a couple of pretty pictures are all it takes to get you going, then yes, you should probably buy this, but if you don’t want to pay money to struggle through the most outdated gameplay money can buy, then no, Figment is not worth your time or money.
Dylan's Morsels 