I'm also fairly certain that while the physics are at least fairly consistent, they are weighed against you.

The controls are so sensitive, and the pace so often fluctuates between slow and careful planning in tighter spots and frantic high-speed panicking in moments of stress, that you are absolutely guaranteed to get upset with this game at some point. Whatever the truth or value in the game's message and the way it chooses to approach it, in practice, it plays like Hell on Earth. The mechanics of every mistake being permanent and auto-saved constantly and there being no checkpoints to act as a safety net are definitely effective in conveying the game's themes of dedication and struggling through adversity, but from a gameplay perspective, it's all just so annoying. I understand the overall message it's going for - the idea that there are great challenges in life that will wear and tear us down, and that we only truly fail and lose when we stop trying and give into despair, but honestly, I found this approach pretentious at times. Maybe I can beat it, but after hours and hours of playing and barely getting anywhere, I decided that is was too annoying and often repetitive and boring for me to want to. I'm going to be clear here: I did not beat this game. I decided that I didn't want to play anymore after getting barely any further after nearly six hours of playtime, and I gave up. However, what positives the game has weren't nearly enough to nullify the fact that I was extremely frustrated by a game that is extremely basic and wildly hard and often unfair. Some of the quotes that are given are insightful, Bennett Foddy does have some nice poetic language and a few little tidbits about difficulty that are intriguing, and I'll admit that I did have some fun for the first few hours, even when I was very frustrated. While in most places the visuals are kind of drab and basic, the random mishmash nature with which some of these pre-made assets are smashed together has a sort of quirky charm. There are some positives to the experience, don't get me wrong. Just multiply the effect by a dozen hours or more, and imagine the whole thing getting harder and harder to a frankly ludicrous degree, often being purposely obtuse and unfair, sprinkled with some vaguely philosophical quotes, and you've got the whole experience right there. After you play the game for about a minute and start to understand the controls, and struggle to pass a single obstacle that would be simple in any other game, you've basically seen it all. What you see is what you get in this case. While you play, the game's developer, Bennett Foddy, comments over the gameplay, explaining why he decided to make this game the way he did, what inspired it, and his general feelings about progression in games as well as challenges in both entertainment and life. In Getting Over It you play as Diogenes - a reference to Greek mythology - who is a man sitting in a cauldron attempting to climb a very tall and convoluted mountain using nothing but a sledgehammer.

Let's go over the basics for all those uninitiated. I accept your challenge, Bennett Foddy, and I don't take kindly to being made fun of. Well, I for one have made up my mind, and it's dead set on analyzing this cauldron of rage and mocking philosophy. This sort of thing tends to happen with rage games that explode online and live to be watched - people don't review them as often as other games -maybe because most reviewers think that these games speak for themselves and that the community has already made up its mind. But the question I'm here to ask is this: How good of a game is it really? It exploded in popularity as a game that people love to watch people throw their controllers and scream over, and laugh over the difficulty and absurdity of when they play it themselves. If you've been hanging around the gaming scene on YouTube and Twitch lately, odds are you've seen this game at least a little.

Getting over it game playforms