This isn't the first time that I have said that a game is difficult to review. Mouthwashing is a very difficult game to review. Usually, however, when I say that I'm having difficulty reviewing a game, it's because I have very mixed and conflicting feelings about that game. Or because it's borderline impossible to review the game without discussing extensive spoilers. Well, that last one actually is true in this case, but there's a more important reason why this game is difficult to review: Mouthwashing is a very difficult game to play. Not "difficult", as in "challenging", the way that Dark Souls is "difficult". Not "difficult", as in "broken", the way that a lot of awful low-budget indie games might be. Instead, Mouthwashing is thematically and emotionally difficult to play because it depicts a lot of very disturbing and grotesque subject matters that are just hard to sit through.

The low-fi, PS1-inspired graphics do not, in any way, take away from the visceral visual design of the game. In fact, the low-fi visuals, combined with a film grain filter, give the game a gritty, grimy feeling that might have been harder to accomplish with higher-fidelity graphics that might fall into the uncanny valley. For example, it might seem that the lack of facial animation is a flaw in the game that makes it difficult for some players to understand the emotional context of what the characters are saying, and to read the actual plot of the game with a cold detachment that will make the story harder to understand. And while that is true, there is also a very valid thematic reason for why the characters don't have facial animations, and for why their emotions aren't immediately obvious.

The crippled, disfigured husk of Captain Curly is disgusting to look at, and even more disgusting to listen to. The pain and humiliation that Captain Curly is subjected to are absolutely horrific to behold and contemplate. And that's just the start of the awful things that this game subjects the player to!

This a grotesque game that can be difficult to play.

But this isn't a game about body horror; it's a game about abuse, and the failure or unwillingness to take responsibility for one's actions.

But this story is delivered in a disjoint, non-linear, and sometimes abstract manner that can make it difficult to follow on a first playthrough. It might take a second playthrough to really understand what is going on, and what had happened prior to the events of the game. Thankfully, the 2-ish hour runtime means that a repeat playthrough isn't much of a burden at all. It's nowhere near as annoying and burdensome as something like having to replay Silent Hill 2 remake to try to get different endings, or to collect all the collectibles.

And this is where it starts to get difficult to talk about this game without spoilers. Honestly, if low-fi, psychological horror walking sims about abuse aren't your jam, then you won't play this, and probably won't care about spoilers. Otherwise, if you're into this kind of thing, then you probably know who you are. If you haven't already played the game, and you might be interested, then you should stop reading and play it. It gets my fullest recommendation!

It is impossible to talk about this game's merits without major spoilers...

Whether you agree with my assertion in the previous essay that NCAA 13's recruiting was better than NCAA 14's, I hope I've at least made a compelling case that NCAA 14's recruiting system left a lot of room for Tiburon to improve in its upcoming EA Sports College Football game in 2023. Now I want to provide some constructive feedback and pitch some ideas I have for how Tiburon could improve the recruiting mechanic going forward, by hopefully taking the best of what both NCAA 13 and 14 had to offer.

Lessons from NCAA 14

The previous essay included a lot of criticism of NCAA 14, so I want to start off this second part by acknowledging a feature in NCAA 14 that I feel is a strict upgrade over 13, and which I would like to see preserved in EA's future college football games.

I think my single favorite upgrade in NCAA 14 is the idea of having "complimentary" and "competitive campus visits". If you schedule players from complimentary positions to visit campus on the same week, you'll get bonus points. For example, bringing in a running back along with the linemen who will be blocking for him will provide bonus points.

But you also have to be wary of scheduling multiple players of the same position. If you schedule 2 or 3 running backs on the same week, they'll see each other as competition, and will lose interest out of fear that your backfield will be crowded, and they'll loose out on playing time to another back in the same class. This is one of the few elements of 14's recruiting design which I feel retains the more humanistic, character-driven ethos from 13, and I like it a lot.

Users should avoid scheduling multiple recruits at the same position to visit in the same week.

14 also makes it much more clear how your performance on the field will impact the interest level of the visiting prospects. In NCAA 13, I was never clear about whether scheduling a visit during a bye week would make a difference, or if it mattered whether or not I won the game (if I played one that week). I always assumed that the prospect was there to watch the football game, so scheduling the visit during a bye week would impose a penalty, and I also always assumed that winning the game improved the prospect's interest, and I assumed that the prospect would also get more interest if the players at his position performed well during the game. But the U.I. for NCAA 13 was never clear about whether any of that was actually the way the game worked, or if the prospect only cared about the 3 recruiting pitches that I try to sell him on during the visit. NCAA 14 makes all this blatantly clear when you schedule the visit by showing exactly how many points the prospect will get if certain criteria are met.

My friends and family have always found that video games and board games are always good go-to gifts for me during the holiday season (which for us, starts in the fall, as my partner and I both have birthdays in September and October). 2020 was a bit different, however. For one thing, the COVID-19 pandemic meant that we weren't able to get groups together for tabletop gaming nearly as often as we used to. The pandemic didn't stop us from tabletop gaming altogether, but we restrained our play to being with only a few regular players, and even then, played mostly 2-player games in order to avoid having multiple house guests at a time. We even sometimes wore masks while playing, just as an added precaution.

It wasn't that I didn't want new board games (or expansions to games I already have); rather, we just weren't sure when I'd ever be able to play them. For example, I did receive the new Crusader Kings board game by Free League Publishing. Hopefully, I'll have an opportunity to play it sometime soon, and be able to write a review for it to go along with my review of the video game.

But video games were not a hard purchase because of the pandemic. Sitting at home and playing video games is, after all, one of the best and safest pass-times during a pandemic. Rather, the big video game releases of this fall came with a lot of baggage or circumstantial reasons why I wasn't enthusiastic to buy them.

Lack of games didn't sell me on a PS5

First and foremost is the biggest of the big new releases this year: the new consoles. I've never been an XBox-player, so there was no interest in a new XBox to begin with. I am, however, interested in the PS5. But I wasn't rushing out to buy one because I'm not going to buy a new console if there aren't any exclusive new games to play on it. And since I wasn't rushing out to buy one, supply problems meant that it only got harder to find one. Honestly, I was surprised that the PS5 seemingly sold so well considering that there just wasn't all that much to play on it. My lack of enthusiasm for the new console meant that even though my partner considered trying to buy one, she eventually decided against it.

The only 2 games on PS5 worth playing are not worth buying a new console.

The big releases for the PS5 were the Demon's Souls remake and Miles Morales. So far, they are the only 2 games worth playing on the PS5, which is why I saw them bundled together with the console at multiple retailers and resellers. I was interested in both, but not enough to drop $400 on a new console -- especially not during a time of economic uncertainty. I'm sorry Sony, but if you want to sell me on a new console, you got to have something better than a remake of a game from 10 years ago (and 2 console generations ago) that I already played the hell out of back in the day, and a sequel to game from 2 years ago that looks like it's mostly just more of the same (and which is also available on the last-gen console anyway). Every other big release for the PS5, from Assassin's Creed: Valhalla to Cyberpunk: 2077 was also released on other platforms, so again, there was no need to rush out and buy a PS5 to play these games -- which I wouldn't have done anyway because both of those games have their own baggage, which I'll get to later in this post.

I only bought a PS4 because of Bloodborne, and the PS5 has so far lacked a similar console-selling exclusive. Maybe they'll have one eventually. Maybe if Elden Ring were a PS5-exclusive, I'd be in more of a hurry to secure myself a console. But as far as I know, that game is set for release on PS4 and will also be available on PC, so I don't need a PS5 in order to play it, the way that I needed a PS4 to play Bloodborne.

WARNING:
The following contains sexual content that may not be safe for work or children, including descriptions of alleged criminal behavior at Ubisoft, and a screenshot from Cyberpunk 2077 that contains nudity. Reader discretion is advised.