Kellogg’s Cornflakes (Cornflakes) Review

 

Today we are taking a look at perhaps the most classic Cornflakes of them all: 'Kellogg’s Cornflakes'. While nowadays all kind of cereals are being referred to as Cornflakes, the original one was implemented by the famous Kellogg’s Brothers in 1894. It wasn't the first cereal, but it is arguably the most famous ever made. Same as Playstation for example has become a synonym for videogames, Cornflakes has become a synonym for Cereals. Cornflakes were actually created per accident. The brothers were working as doctors at the time and took some experiments to find a new healthy food for their patients. One of this experiments turned out to be extremely popular among their patients and the brothers took the opportunity to create their own company and go into mass production with these Cornflakes.

Till this day the Kellogg’s company is still selling this product. The box image has the iconic green Rooster, called Cornelius Rooster, in front of blank white background. I always found this image extremely fitting. Regardless of what you think of the quality of the product, it symbolizes the down to earth approach of this relatively basic approach to cereals. While other products are far more extravagant, both in design as well as taste, Kellogg’s Cornflakes keeps it simple.  You see the product, you see the caricature of the Rooster and you know what you get.

That being said, the basic approach also has some downsides. Even though I was very aware of Kellogg’s Cornflakes as a child, I always perceived them as a product for older people. All the other cereals had goofy animated characters on their boxes and far more extravagant or shiny looking cereals. You can say what you want, but as a kid, a visually attractive box image is what naturally catches your interest and decides whether you want to try out the product or not. I know many other children eating Nestles Nesquik or Kellogg’s Choco Krispies or Froot Loops, but I never met another kid, who ate Kellogg’s Cornflakes or cared for Cornelius Rooster.

Fun Fact: Even though Cornelius Rooster is in the minds of most people (including mine) so inseparably linked to Cornflakes, he actually just took over in 1957. Before that, the 'Sweetheart of Corn' was advertising the product and gracing us with her presence on the boxes. That being said, the sweetheart doesn’t seem to be based on one specific person and we can see many different versions of her, that vary very much in looks. Sometimes she is blond, sometimes brunette, sometimes she is older, sometimes younger and sometimes she is even a doll.

Apart from the sweetheart of corn and Cornelius, there were also some bland boxes without any promotional material in front of them and also some Cornflakes boxes with just a corncob as representative of the food. Once again a very basic design, but at the same time very fitting and on the point.

Most other cover variants were those with random children and those with some Celebrities at the time. There were however also some Disney versions to promote popular IPs of the time, like Snow White, Aladdin, the Goofy movie or Lion King.

The overwhelming majority of box covers however are based on Cornelius Rooster. Most of them feature Cornelius in a 2D caricature version as a green rooster. With a blank white background and only a bowl of Cornflakes in front of him, they are very simple and basic, but as I said it does fit the down to earth approach of Kellogg’s Cornflakes. They are often accompanied with the slogans “The Original and Best” or “The best to you each morning”. Some Boxes only feature Cornelius as an Icon image on the box or Cornelius face on a bowl of Cornflakes. One of the most extravagant boxes is probably the special edition for Chinese New Year 2017, which was the year of the rooster and featured Cornelius in red and gold colours. Fun fact: Cornelius has become so popular that he even got multiple different children puppets and even a Pop figure. And talking about extravagant box images, some of the more modern Cornflakes boxes feature pictures of a 3D version of Cornelius on top of them. There is even a commercial with a gigantic real-life Rooster in them. That being said, I personally prefer the more classic look of Cornelius, like on the last box I purchased for this review. It immediately symbolizes everything the product stands for and might even be my favourite of the Cornflakes box images.

The most classic way to actually eat Kellogg’s Cornflakes is to just soak them in milk, like with all other cereals. I unfortunately have to say, that Kellogg’s Cornflakes, in my opinion, taste like eating wet paper. If you eat them dry, which for some cereals, like Cini Minis even enhances the taste, than Kellogg’s Cornflakes already leave much to be desired. Since they are a particularly healthy cereals, they are lacking almost all kinds of sugar and flavour enhancements other products have and unfortunately you can taste that. It is a mix of nothingness and leaving your mouth dry, which makes them really uncomfortable for me to eat. This would be fine if Milk was able to save them. Unfortunately it is not. The milk doesn’t add anything to them and just makes them more rubbery. I have never actually eaten paper, but I imagine it to be exactly like this. The only way I found some kind of enjoyment in the Cornflakes, was to mix them with bananas and quickly swallow them down, so I didn’t have to actually taste them. To be fair however, in this case I only enjoyed the banana mixed with milk. The cornflakes actually made them taste worse. I am sorry to be this blunt, but in my opinion Kellogg’s Cornflakes just taste absolutely awful…

I previously mentioned that I never knew another child eating Kellogg’s Cornflakes, I however still have a childhood connection to this product. While I did try out all kinds of different cereals back than, I was still a regular Nesquik consumer. The only exception was when I was visiting my grandparents. They knew I liked cereals and they told me they also got cereals at home and as you can guess, those cereals turned out to be Kellogg’s Cornflakes. I already didn’t like them back than and I am sure I also at least implied that a few times to them, but there was always another box of Kellogg’s Cornflakes waiting for me each time I visited. After all those years, I can safely say, that nothing changed. I still passionately dislike the taste of this product.

Apart from milk, people have found all kind of other creative ways to eat Kellogg’s Cornflakes. Some eat them mixed with fruit, some together with some ice cream and some even with potatoes, with some fish or on top of pancakes… Each to their own I guess.

There are also many subproducts of Kellogg’s Cornflakes. Kellogg’s Frosties for example are just Kellogg’s Cornflakes with additional sugar. While Kellogg’s Crunchy Nut are Kellogg’s Cornflakes with additional honey instead. Sometimes Kellogg’s Special K is also getting confused with the Cornflakes and while they may look quite similar, Special K are made with rice and wheat, while Cornflakes consist mainly of corn. Special K are also more crispy than Cornflakes.

Apart from subproducts there are however also official different variants of Kellogg’s Cornflakes, of which I have never seen any being sold here in Germany. There are for example Kellogg’s Cornflakes with chocolate flavour. Those look quite interesting, but apparently they have been removed from sale in most countries due to health concerns. There also Kellogg’s Cornflakes with strawberry flavour and strawberry puree. They also look like they might improve the flavour of classic Kellogg’s Cornflakes. Interestingly enough there are also chocolate and strawberry versions of Frosties, which visually look very similar to the Cornflakes versions. I guess Tony the Tiger just really likes to copy his brother in spirit Cornelius. Another variant is Kellogg’s Cornflakes with real honey, which look nearly identical to Kellogg’s Crunchy Nuts, but Google AI ensures me there is a marginal difference between them. Crunchy Nuts apparently use slightly more intense honey and sugar than Kellogg’s Cornflakes with real honey. You learn something new everyday. There is also another rare subvariant called Kellogg’s Cornflakes Almond Honey, which mixes the additional Honey with almonds. Kellogg’s Banana Cornflakes mixes, as the name suggests classic Kellogg’s Cornflakes with Banana chips. Another one I would actually like to try, but it’s not available in my country. A really rare variant are also Kellogg’s Apple Cornflakes, which mix Kellogg’s Cornflakes with apple puree and apple pieces, similar to the strawberry versions. As an adjustment to the Indian market Kellogg’s also published 3 special Indian versions called Kellogg’s Cornflakes Thandai Badam, Rose Badam and Kesar Pista Badam. Apparently those are some popular classic Indian flavours.

The weirdest variant however has got to be Kellogg’s Cornflakes Crumbs and Kellogg’s Cornflakes Crisped Chicken, which is Chicken with a layer of crisped Cornflakes on top of it. Some even suggest using it as part of a Kellogg’s Cornflakes Chicken Burger. I guess now I have truly seen everything.

 

Result:

If healthy cereals like Kellogg’s Cornflakes are the key to long lasting health and perhaps even eternal life, than I rather die young. The price is just too high and I am not talking about a financial price. The taste is just too disappointing for me personally. Maybe some of the variants are better products, but I unfortunately don’t have access to any of them.

I feel bad for doing this, but I have to give Kellogg’s Cornflakes a

2/10

They are the worst I have eaten so far. I would recommend trying it out at least once for its cultural significance, but to quickly switch to other cereals the next time...

The Man in the Park 2 (PC) Review

 

‘The Man in the Park 2: The Second Man in the Park’ is the sequel to The Man in the Park. The premise is quite similar to the first game. You travel through a lonely park in the middle of the night, but this time you can encounter 2 different people sitting on park benches. The player has to decide who he is going to trust and this time there are even 6 different endings.

So far this sounds like a noticeable improvement to the first game and in some ways it is. The Man in the Park 2 is not as criminally short as its predecessor and there is at least a little more gameplay to it. The gameplay is nothing interesting, but something is certainly better than nothing.

My big problem with the Man in the Park 2 is however how it doesn’t take itself serious. It tries to be a self-aware Horror comedy, but is neither funny enough for comedy nor does it manage to create a Horror atmosphere. So in a way it has the same problem as the first game, but for different reasons.

 

Result:

Longer, more gameplay options and yet The Man in the Park 2 doesn’t really improve. There might be more of it, but the gameplay is just boring and the story lackluster nonsense (like a bad Reddit fanfiction). The first game at least attempted to be scary.

 

3/10

The Man in the Park 1 (PC) Review

 

The Man in the Park 1 is an extremely short Horror Game. I really have to emphasize the short part. I am no stranger to review smaller, shorter games, but The Man in the Park is criminally short. You can beat the entire game and unlock all 3 Endings in around 2 minutes combined.

The concept of the game intrigued me. You travel through a park at night, where you met a lonely old man sitting on a park bench. What happens next is up to the player. It reminded me a lot of ‘Last Bus Home’, which is a significantly better game on itch.io. 

The man in the park has practically no gameplay. I won’t spoiler the “story”, but after talking to the old man there is next to nothing to do. The premise is cool and you can also make a rather short game with a nice horror vibe, but the man in the park is too short to actually create something like a horror atmosphere.

The visuals are very simple, but that’s fine for a smaller Horror Game. The massive flickering of some of them however is a bit straining on the eyes and some of the few objects you can simply walk through, which is usually an indicator for lack of effort.

 

Result:

The Man in the Park is like a comedy event, where the comedian shows up, tells an okay joke, which started more promising than it ended, for 2 mins and walks off the stage. There is no follow-up act or anything else. The setup is good, but the “game” doesn’t do anything with it. No meaningful gameplay, no real story, just the attempt of a scare.

 

3/10

ScreeIn (PC) Review

 

ScreeIn is a psychological Horror game, which released in late August for free on Steam. The game has a somewhat interesting TV feature, which allows players to travel to different stages via a TV remote. This feature was supposed to resemble an episodic structure, but it actually just works more like a gateway between a couple of short levels.

The developer claims that these stages all symbolize different traumas the protagonist of the game has face throughout his life. I am glad the developer stated that on the Steam page of the game, because I couldn’t really decipher any coherent meaning of the game during my playthrough.

The presentation is actually at least decent in the game with some nice effects for a smaller game. I however really struggled during my playthrough to understand what the game was trying to tell me. Things seem to mostly happen because they look nice, not because they wanted to tell an understandable story. I was for example unsure whether the use of mannequins for all characters was supposed to symbolize the arbitrariness and exchangeability of humans or whether the developer just cheapened out of using proper character models. It now seems to me, it must have been the later one.

The gameplay consists of walking and solving very simple puzzles. Those were more like pseudo puzzles, who could be solved by picking something up and placing it on the only appropriate spot. The game should have definitely been more demanding in that area or just left it out.

The biggest downfall of the game however are certainly its many technical issues. This starts with the game using a completely unoptimized Unreal Engine version. The visuals may look nice, but there is a constant motion blur and even screen tearing present, which can’t be battled via the options, because there aren’t any. You can’t change the mouse sensitivity, deactivate motion blur, activate V-Sync or change the visual fidelity. What you see is what you get and that is a really bad performance.  

Other than that I also encountered game-breaking glitches on 3 different occasions. That is nearly impressive for a game that’s only around 15 mins long.

 

Result:

I like the idea of traveling via a TV remote through the mind of a mentally struggling person, but like with many smaller Horror games, the execution can’t really keep up with the idea. Nothing wrong with being a bit vague and leaving things up to interpretation, but ScreeIn seems too incomprehensible. The biggest flaws of the game however are the performance issues and game-breaking glitches, which will prevent most players from fully experiencing the game. There is definitely potential in ScreeIn, but it would probably require a very significant update to unlock it.

 

4/10

Lights Off Director’s Cut (PC) Review

 

Lights Off Director’s Cut is a Remake of the Horror Game ‘Lights Off’, which I reviewed last year on this blog (https://gamereviewnation.blogspot.com/2024/11/normal-0-21-false-false-false-de-x-none.html). The game got slightly extended and changed up a bit, but to a large degree remains the same.

The visual engine of the remake doesn’t seem to be the same as in the original Lights Off, but unless you look at them side by side, they look nearly identical. Perhaps the developer could have done more to increase the visual fidelity of the remake while still keeping the spooky atmosphere.

I do however like the new decor of the house where the player lives. The spacing between the objects is much better and the house now looks like a place, where somebody is actually living. There are now also 7 instead of 5 light switches and a small additional bathroom area. That being said, my point of critique, that there weren’t enough gameplay elements outside of the light switches, like a TV you could turn on, or a book you could read, still remains valid. These implementations would just go a long way into adding more immersion.

The Director’s cut also brought in a new sprint function. I am not entirely sure what to think of it. The walking speed of the original game was really slow. So on the one side, it’s a nice convenience feature. On the other side however, it can reduce the horror feeling a little bit, especially since the house is a relatively small area of play.

Let’s now also talk in more detail about some of the other differences between the Director’s Cut and the original, which means that SPOILERS will be included in the next section:

The first 3 days play out pretty much identical between both versions. On the first day nothing happens, which I like, since it helps to show a continuous increase in Horror suspense and eases the player into the game. On the second day a light switch will turn back on, while on day 3 you will hear some ominous noises in the background. Day 4 shows the first big difference. While you in the original just hear some creepy noises and footsteps while falling asleep, you actually wake up in the remake and investigate those noises. This is also the first visual confrontation for the player with the monster. On the fifth day players can spot it again in the bathroom. In the original game however the fifth day was the photo day, while that has now been removed to the sixth day in the Director’s Cut. The photo sequence plays out differently in both versions. While in the original you have to take random photos in the darkness till you manage to spot the monster 3 times, you now have to take photos as soon as the monster randomly appears in the remake. Both approaches make sense and I honestly don’t know which one I prefer. Before I forget to mention it, but the confrontations with the monster on day 4+5 have one big problem: invisible walls! The monster will not disappear when you approach it and you will instead be blocked by an invisible barrier. This was extremely immersive breaking for me, which is a shame, since the horror atmosphere and the psychological element is the main feature of the Lights Off games. This could have easily been solved by either making the monster disappear as soon as the player approaches, or just letting the player be killed if he gets too close. A shame, since I otherwise like the idea of having the monster actively creeping around in the background in the remake. The original game ends on the 6^th day with the player being killed by the monster in his sleep. I thought this was a great ending, but unfortunately with a lackluster execution. Instead of actually seeing the player’s death, we just hear really creepy suffocating noises, which didn’t really fit in. In the Director’s Cut the game ends on the 7^th day with a ritual. This is a cool idea, but I am unfortunately once again not a fan of the execution. The ritual just consists of the player running between light bolts, while randomly one light switch turns on. This would have been okay for 20-30 seconds, but this rather dull gameplay carries on for more than 2 mins. I however do appreciate that the game got multiple different endings, which are all just determined by your behaviour on the last day.

 

Result:

I played both the original and the Director’s Cut last year and was initially a bit underwhelmed by the remake. After replaying both this year, I actually believe that the Director’s Cut is the better version. That being said, some elements have become better, others became worse and a lot are just different. Mostly however the game is nearly the same. If you didn’t like the original Lights Off, than the Director’s Cut is unlikely to convince you otherwise. If you enjoyed the original, than the new take is certainly worth a try. I really like the relatable premise of these games to turn all the lights off in the middle of the night, while you are alone at your place. For me the Director’s Cut is a slight improvement, that however didn’t fix all of the original’s weakspots and even introduced some new ones of their own. For fans of psychological horror it should be worth a try, especially since it’s a free game. I do however wonder what the developer could have achieved, if he took longer than just one week to remake the game.

 

6/10