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

Fortnite Blitz Royale (PS5) Review

 

Blitz Royale launched as a time-limited Gamemode in Fortnite on the 18^th of June 2025 and was only supposed to last till the 15^th of July. Blitz however exceeded all expectations so that it was quickly extended for another month before it turned into a permanent Gamemode.

But what actually is Blitz Royale? Well, I am so glad you asked.

Blitz Royale is a small scale Battle Royale mode for 32 players on a comparatively really small map. The map consists of about half the size of a Fortnite Reload map. This was very apparent since Blitz during the first 2 months used a small scale version of Venture (the first Reload map).

In contrast to regular Reload there are no respawns available in Blitz and matches can be played in Solo, Duos, Squads and Six player teams. All matches however are being played in Zero Build. There are no Blitz lobbies with the building feature enabled. Apart from the regular matchmaking, which fills the lobbies with a lot of Bots, there are also specific non-Bot lobbies for Duos and 6 player teams. Interesting that players and content creators always heavily criticized the OG mode for having Bots, but I practically never saw the same criticism being ushered for Blitz Royale.

According to the Fortnite developers the Gamemode was designed primarily for mobile players, but it is accessible for players on all platforms regardless. So if the aim was to design a gamemode primarily for mobile players, than it is questionable if they actually succeeded with this, since it will be mostly Console and PC players dominating the lobbies.

The smaller scale of the maps and lack of respawns however gives Blitz a very fast pace. Matches on average take only around 5 mins, which is really the speedrun version of Battle Royale matches and pretty unheard of in the genre. I really have to give Fortnite credit for this. The idea seems so logical that it is odd, that no one else has done it before. There are smaller round-based Battle Royale games, but there are no other 5 mins BR games for 30+ players out there. I will personally always prefer longer (“real”) Battle Royale matches and Youtube videos over Blitz and Youtube Shorts/Tiktok videos, but there is clearly a huge market for that.

Blitz Royale tries to keep things fresh via weekly variants. Every week users play with a different weaponpool or starting weapons and since Week 7 map changes are also possible. Week 2 for example was based on Avatar abilities, while week 4 brought the Ninja Turtles weapons back. Week 7 gave us the return of Mega City, while during week 9 players were fighting in the Oathbound Citadel. It will be interesting to see how long they will be able to keep the weekly rotations fresh and exciting before they inevitably will have to recycle content at some point.

Another important aspect of Blitz Royale are the Blitz levels. Around every minute players get additional rewards during the matches. Blitz Level 2 for example gives players an additional Boon (which grants players bonus effects) and on Level 3 and 4 they get random golden and mythic weapons for free. This removes the need to lot after the first minute or two.

So far Epic Games has clearly succeeded with this gamemode. During its first couple of weeks Blitz Royale had more players than even the main Battle Royale Gamemode. I don’t think this has ever happened in Fortnite history and at that point it was already obvious to me, that they would simply have to make the gamemode permanent. Blitz launched with more than 400.000 players in June and reached a peak of over 530.000 players in early August. Obviously they couldn’t hold that kind of numbers, but Blitz still manages to average around 100.000 players in September, which still makes it the most played gamemode outside of the main Battle Royale mode. It would have been insane to remove Blitz, while Party Royale or Legends Landing stay in the game.

 

Result:

No matter how you look at it, Blitz Royale has been a major success for Fortnite. While I will personally always prefer the bigger Battle Royale format (especially the OG mode), it’s really nice that the option is there to play a very fast paced alternative as well. Blitz Royale is therefore for me like the perfect appetizer before the main dinner. While it will never manage to outshine the following dishes, it’s always nice to start your meal on a positive note.

It’s also interesting to see, that all the more classic third-person shooter modes in Fortnite, like Battle Royale, OG, Reload and Blitz have far more players than Lego Fortnite, Festival or Rocket Racing. Maybe this could be an indicator that Epic Games should focus on what they can do best instead of trying to represent every videogame genre within one game.

 

7.5/10

Fun with the Fitzgeralds (PS4) Review

Fun with the Fitzgeralds is a scuffed Battle Royale attempt by a Solo developer. Some people cut the developer some slack, because she mentions in the description of the game that she developed it for her 6-year-old daughter. I however have to disagree. She might have meant well, but this regularly costs 7 Euro on the Playstation Store (but somehow only 1 on Steam, how discriminating). The only reason this game has seen a very minor rise in population is, that it was given away for free on the Playstation Store for a while, which has lured in a lot of trophy hunters (admittedly including me).

One of the few resources even more valuable than money is time. I will therefore be totally honest in my review. Fun with the Fitzgeralds is, despite claiming otherwise, not a fun game.

You could probably best summarize the game with ‘scuffed Incredibles trapped in an Unreal Engine Mess’. The characters are very clearly based on the Incredibles family with some minor additions, like grandparents and an uncle. Apart from the character looks, there are however no gameplay or other connections to Superheroes.

The map is very meh. There are a couple of smaller POIs and some different biomes, like a small beach, a snow area, a swamp and a little city, but none of them manage to stand out. They all look like they have quickly been created via some random unreal engine map generator. The smaller map size is probably based on the fact that this Battle Royale game only supports up to 8 players per match. For 20, 30 or dare even 100 players, the map would be way too small, but for 8 the map size is fine.

But let’s talk about the two worst aspects of the game, the gameplay and the technical status. The weapons in the game feel awful. There is no precision or any kind of assist when aiming. Weapon switches are always extremely delayed or sometimes the game even ignores your inputs. Movement also feels sluggish, even though at least not as bad as the gunplay. It’s like the game was just quickly ported over from the PC version without any adjustments. Shooting and moving is no fun in this game and that is kind of important in a Shooter Game.

The other huge problem is the technical status of the game. The game is always pretty laggy and crash prone, even if you just boost with yourself. In an 8 player lobby this gets even worse. There is also no bot support and as soon as all trophy hunters have moved on, the playerbase will be pretty extinct again soon.

The trophies are all pretty easy to gain except for one, which requires 8 players in a match. The game doesn’t feature a platinum trophy and I am still hesitant to recommend it even for trophy hunters.

 

Result:

Fun with the Fitzgeralds is not a fun game. It is a scuffed unreal engine mess and not worth anybody’s time except for diehard trophy collectors. The gameplay is awful and the technical status leaves much to be desired. The regular Playstation price of 7 bucks seem audacious considering how many better and free alternatives are on the market. I have played more than a 100 different Battle Royale games and this game is certainly within the 10 worst.

 

2.5/10