Jump to navigation
Advertisement

Lost In Blue 2 Review

DS Review by Keza MacDonald

9 May, 2007

There were plenty of reasons not to like Lost in Blue. Personally I adored the game for its charming sense of adventure and unique, oddly touching ambiance, but it had definite problems that quite rightly turned many people away from it within the first few hours. Sexism, though, really wasn't one of them for me. Although the (universally male) game critics who criticised its man-hunt, woman-cook-and-clean portrayal of gender roles deserve points for effort, I really don't believe that there was anything malicious or genuinely upsetting about Lost in Blue's character roles; I think it was probably going for sweet co-dependence, but sadly it did end up coming across as a bit unenlightened.

Lost in Blue's real key problem was that it did very little to help the player. It offered no advice to the floundering novice, scrabbling desperately around in the mud to find edible grubs to keep themselves barely alive whilst they wrestled with their seemingly brain-dead fellow castaway, whose apparent refusal to eat or drink of her own volition drove many of the game's potential fans to distraction. It seemed like a thankless, unforgiving grind - until you learned its tricks. Until you figured out how to fashion more effective weapons, or use traps properly, or catch animals, or learned to tell your companion back in the cave to look after herself for a bit so that she wouldn't die of thirst whilst you popped out to fetch some berries. It was a difficult game, yes, and the game's various technical quirks exacerbated its already unforgiving nature, but it was also incredibly rewarding. Sadly it took a lot of time to master even the basics, and consequently Lost in Blue was full of depth and surprises that hardly anybody ever found.

At heart, Lost in Blue 2 is the same game as its predecessor, and it's got most of the same faults. It's hugely unhelpful, and leaves you to figure out for yourself a lot of information that really should have been in the manual - basic things like how to hunt, or tell your new partner to look after himself (yes, this time you can play as the lady, which should hopefully stop people from throwing allegations of sexism around like it's 1979). And it's a shame that it's so desperately inaccessible, it really is, because there is a rewarding, compelling, even touching game in here, just as there was in the original. You just have to work hard to find it.

'Lost In Blue 2' Screenshot 1

Tip: small traps are your best friends. Mice apparently make a lovely stew.

It begins in exactly the same way - two late-teens castaways, a girl and a boy, find themselves the only survivors of a shipwreck, lost on an apparently deserted island. Playing as either, you set about making it your home. You start off with nothing, nibbling on raw carrots and burnt clams on the cold stone floor of your cave dwelling, and as you slowly begin to explore the island, the discovery of better resources makes life marginally easier. Day by day, ever so slowly, things improve, until eventually (if you have the patience) you're heading out on five-day expeditions to the furthest reaches of the island, returning to comfy fur beds and a feast of meat stew in your own self-built treehouse. It's a delicate balancing act - there is a constant urge to explore and push your island survivors to the very limit, but anything but the most carefully planned excursions often end in sickness or death. Unless they're kept well-rested, well-stocked and well-fed, young Jack and Amy (marginally less contrived names than the original's Keith and Skye, at least) won't be going anywhere.

Your partner is considerably more helpful this time around, and contributes to your joint survival by cooking, gathering wood, food and water and crafting things like rope and baskets, once you've found the right resources. Although leaving them in the cave for a few days with plenty of water and a good stock of food is no problem, provided that you remember to tell them you'll be gone for a while, it's actually a lot more practical to go exploring together - something that was an absolute chore in the first game.

At the beginning, though, their survival skills aren't exactly honed, meaning that you'll have to do almost everything yourself or risk losing valuable food to your partner's terrible cooking skills. Doing the cooking yourself consists of - yes - a series of different touch-based minigames, which might be either a welcome action-based distraction or a tiresome and repetitive daily chore, depending on your tolerance of such things. However, doing well and discovering recipes rewards your ever-hungry survivors with more satisfying food, a bonus whose value can only be truly apparent to those who spent entire days catching sackfuls of fish in the first game in a vain effort to satisfy their voracious appetites.

Although Lost in Blue 2's island is significantly larger, the process of exploring it and uncovering its secrets is the same - it's the same tantalisingly gradual sense of discovery, the same addictive, rhythmic sequence of day-to-day gathering and survival, of preparation, exploration and recovery. There are new animals to catch, or fight, and new exotic foods to sample, but these changes are minor. However insignificant they might appear, though, these minor tweaks to the mechanics of the game - the cooking, your partner's increased involvement and the different island layout - do much to ease the constant burden of survival. Being able to take your partner with you makes the game less frustrating and rather less difficult, as well as less lonely; it feels like a co-dependant relationship, as opposed to the original's rather forced, gender-specific character roles. It's a little easier to feel attached to the characters, more interesting and satisfying to watch their relationship grow over the course of the game.

'Lost In Blue 2' Screenshot 2

Fighting crocodiles with your bare hands is bound to impress the lady.

But the fact remains that despite minor improvements, Lost in Blue 2 is overwhelmingly similar to last year's game. If you, like me, were one of the twenty-three people in this country who fell in love with it, then that's great news - you'll relish the opportunity to explore and enjoy a whole new island, without the burden of a completely dependant partner. But the experience is only subtly different, and despite the fact that it's slightly less obstinate than its predecessor in several ways, the very nature of Lost in Blue hasn't changed at all. It is still glacially paced and quite unforgiving, and basic survival still takes a lot of effort. Arguably it's really quite an accurate representation of the situation it portrays, in that respect - if you really were stuck on a desert island, you probably would spend the vast majority of your time just trying to keep yourself alive, and not, say, swanning around on the beach in hotpants and flirting with Josh Holloway.

However, the most significant obstacle to most peoples' enjoyment of the first game - namely, the over-dependant partner - has been removed, and so I really hope that Lost in Blue 2 will win a few new fans as well as delighting the old ones. There's a lovely and unique game in here, if you've the patience to find it, and there is something very calming and satisfying about the hard graft and gradual improvement at the game's core.

Lost in Blue has a lot of soul, even though it will probably never get through to most people. Give it another try, and it might just become one of your favourite games.

7/10

Read our Scoring Policy

Advertisement

Are you excited about Lost in Blue 2 on DS?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games

Thanks!

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Comments: 1-25 of 25 in total

Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
caligari
09/05/07 @ 10:35
#1
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Oh!
Sud0g
09/05/07 @ 10:41
#2
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
RAHHH!!!
3william56
09/05/07 @ 10:43
#3
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Crocodile my ar$e - it's a vicious jap teen eating platypus.
Saladin
09/05/07 @ 10:53
#4
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
It was the idea of a completely dependant companion that put me off the first game. Maybe I'll give this a go, now that they've ironed out some of the kinks.
mkreku
09/05/07 @ 10:58
#5
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I think it sounds great. But alas, I will never own a DS.
dudefella
09/05/07 @ 11:00
#6
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
bonus points for Lost reference in review
botherer
09/05/07 @ 11:04
#7
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Thanks for my effort points : )

It wasn't that the game fell to "traditional" gender roles that raised my feminist ire - it was that *he* incapacitates *her*. He destroys her glasses, rendering her an invalid, and thus forced to become his house slave. She calmly accepts this fate without a complaint. It was such a peculiarly misogynistic act - the Male restricting the Female and her becoming utterly dependent upon him - that it couldn't go without comment. And at the time, I don't remember any other reviews picking up on this, and lots of people yelled at me.

I don't think it was malicious. I think it was unconscious, which was what was so peculiarly creepy about it.
Scientist
09/05/07 @ 11:21
#8
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Japan, sexist? Well I never.
hjarg
09/05/07 @ 11:29
#9
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Hmmm, i kinda liked the first game as well, despite the totally useless Skye. But the main thing that put me off wasn't the hapless woman (though, come on, even if you broke your glasses, you can walk a few feet outside, grab a drink from the river and gather some firewood). But the main thing that put me off- i finally managed to trap and kill a deer. Oh, lucky days! Now, if things were as they should have been, the little beast should have fed us at least for a week. Some smoked, some boiled, some grilled etc etc. But noes, there was enough for 1 meal! Come on...
Keza
09/05/07 @ 11:32
#10
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
ManicMinerUK: Admittedly considering intention when criticising sexism and other -isms can lead you into an infinite regress of motives, but I do think it's important. There's a difference between Lost in Blue's unintentional sexism - it was trying to go for necessary co-dependence, and ended up, as Botherer points out, a bit sinister, by mistake - and the unintentional sexism of the many, many games who contain only brain-dead, incidental women characters with giant breasts and several equally enormous guns, which is just distastefully thoughtless. DOAXBV is an example. I honestly think that that game's sexism wasn't intentional, but it's still offensive.

Botherer: Looking back, my bonus points comment comes across as rather more patronising than intended. Apologies! Although I do see your point, Keith's destruction of Skye's glasses wasn't intentional (although it was enormously forced) - I think it was supposed to provide a reason for you to look after her. If you think about it, it was a symbiotic relationship that they had - he performed the only role he could, and she similarly.
Keza
09/05/07 @ 11:38
#11
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Haha - yes, but Lost in Blue's wasn't offensive. At least not to me. And as you can probably tell, I spend an inordinate amount of time arguing/whining about sexism in games.
botherer
09/05/07 @ 11:39
#12
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I'll take points wherever I can get them : )
Hugundo
09/05/07 @ 11:39
#13
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I knew i wasnt going to like this as soon as i saw that picture on the front page.
UncleLou
09/05/07 @ 11:55
#14
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
As much as I loved Lost in Blue, I found the way the roles were split a bit annoying as well. "Oh you're home, let me cook something".

Will certainly pick this up sooner or later - Lost in Blue is one of the most underrated games on the DS, in my opinion.
dolphan
09/05/07 @ 13:14
#15
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Might well pick this up at some point, looks intriguing enough to excuse some difficulty.
Royal Fool
09/05/07 @ 13:39
#16
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I really, really, really tried to like Lost in Blue. But, alas, it was just stuck too far up it's own ass, expecting you to perform seemingly random things and accidentally happen upon the next event or big thing to help the kids.

Now, I don't like games that feature excessive hand-holding, but this game really needed to at least keep the player on a leash. Instead, the developers left the door wide open for the players to run out through and never find their way back.

(Wow, horrible analogy)
UncleLou
09/05/07 @ 15:14
#17
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I disagree, with a bit of common sense, Lost in Blue wasn't hard or hard to understand at all. I died exactly once, and that was really my own fault.

Most people tried to do too many things in the beginning, when it's obvious that your stats won't let you get too far. The game isn't stressful at all, and doesn't put you under any kind of (time) pressure at all. Stay near the beach in the beginning, collect what you find there, slowly improve your well-being, sleep a lot, then draw wider circles in how far you explore the island. It's all so ... logical and sensible that I really don't understand why so many people found the game hard. I blame hand-holding console games. ;p
Keza
09/05/07 @ 15:17
#18
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Actually Lost in Blue featured more hand-holding than any other game ever made, except possibly Ico. There's a specific button for it.

Badum-psh.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 09/05/07 @ 16:18
azmol01
09/05/07 @ 16:38
#19
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
mkreku, why not buy a DS? Loads of great games on it, you'd be mad not to own one :)

(I hope my comment doesn't turn this into PSP vs DS troll war)
dirigiblebill
09/05/07 @ 20:35
#20
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@ keza, manicminer, botherer

I think the various forms of sexism contained by many games are generally harmless (at least to an Anglo-American audience- I hear disturbing things about Japan) because more-or-less defunct. Big boobs, fauning female dependence, etc- most people recognise these portrayals as tired cliches. Few take them seriously.

There's also the related point that games simply shouldn't be considered in socio-moral terms. They are, after all, games. Whatever prejudices they express are suspended from common discourse- indulged in isolation, during 'playtime', and dispensed with as soon as you hit the power button. Authorities on the subconscious may differ.
Keza
09/05/07 @ 23:35
#21
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but that's rather like saying that sexist books aren't offensive or relevant, because you're not reading them all the time.

I think games have a great deal of cultural relevance.
dirigiblebill
10/05/07 @ 00:24
#22
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
You're not misunderstanding, I'm just being woolly :) I'm trying to gently resist the idea that a game should be held up to the same harsh interrogative light as, say, a novel or a feature film. Gaming is in my opinion about down-time, non-linear intellectual stimulation without moral consequence, whereas a narrative medium like the novel is more concerned with some sort of social, moral or political message (neither definition should be considered beyond exception, of course).
MetalDog
11/05/07 @ 09:19
#23
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
The only bit of sexism in Lost in Blue that bothered me (and there was quite a bit of low level sexism I let slide, because the game was pretty good), was when they're chatting at night and Skye says something along the lines of:
"I used to think I was strong and independant... but that was just society holding me up."
It seemed fairly clear to me /in context/ with all her other useless traits, that the idea of 'man protect/enslave feeble woman' was high in the mind of the lead designer. Not too surprising, given how horribly sexist Japan is.

Now, this doesn't bother me too much, I'm used to having to turn a blind eye to macho bollocks in games, but I am kind of bothered by a journo sneering at people for mentioning what was there and also for trying to say it wasn't.
dirigiblebill
11/05/07 @ 10:16
#24
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
'Sneering' is a bit much, don't you think? The worst I see is that 'making-allegations-like-it's-1979' quip.

You seem to agree with most of what keza has posted- sexism is sexism, regardless of intention.
Tweakmonkey
05/01/08 @ 19:22
#25
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Great game - enjoying this at the moment. I just found a tiger and have no idea what to do!

Comments: 1-25 of 25 in total

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

X View gallery