SUPERHOT: MIND CONTROL DELETE

 PC
Metascore
78

Generally favorable reviews - based on 34 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 34
  2. Mixed: 11 out of 34
  3. Negative: 0 out of 34
  1. Polygon
    Jul 17, 2020
    I’m not sure what comes next, or if the Superhot team has squeezed the last drop of blood from the franchise, but Mind Control Delete is a fascinating remix of the concepts that made the first two games so influential.

Awards & Rankings

92
#92 Best PC Game of 2020
63
#63 Most Discussed PC Game of 2020

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
6.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 148 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 60 out of 148
  2. Mixed: 67 out of 148
  3. Negative: 21 out of 148
  1. geam
    Dec 20, 2020
    4
    Superhot: Mind Control Delete builds upon its predecessor by adding new, creative enemy types along with a host of interesting gameplaySuperhot: Mind Control Delete builds upon its predecessor by adding new, creative enemy types along with a host of interesting gameplay features. However, the larger picture direction in which MCD chooses to go leads to a disappointing and overall boring experience.

    Much of what made Superhot so enjoyable was that every level was carefully, individually crafted. Because of this, playing a level of Superhot in 2016 felt like solving a puzzle, as opposed to mindlessly gunning down enemies. In MCD, levels are procedurally generated, so you will inevitably play the same maps over and over again. There is now an unknown kill quota required to complete each level, along with the player having multiple lives.

    The entire game design of Superhot was built on the foundation of a one-hit kill system. As a result, MCD feels like an interesting game built on the incorrect foundation—the game falls apart once the novelty of the new features is lost. MCD feels less like puzzle solving and more like slow-motion survival. It only takes one or two hours for MCD to feel boring and repetitive.

    Additionally, without spoiling anything, the ending was, to me, completely unacceptable.    … Full Review »
  2. XLazer
    Aug 29, 2020
    5
    Overall - 5.5/10

    It's the same **** repeated over and over again, i bought this for 1$ and that is its real worth tbh. It's just the old    Overall - 5.5/10

    It's the same **** repeated over and over again, i bought this for 1$ and that is its real worth tbh. It's just the old main game with added some new maps, weapons and 'hacks'. It gets really boring real fast.

    Enjoyment - 4/10    … Full Review »
  3. randomfish
    Jul 28, 2020
    0
    [eurogamer]"The arbitrary amount [of locked-in time for the end credits] we shipped with was eight hours, a perfect time to sleep on the game[eurogamer]"The arbitrary amount [of locked-in time for the end credits] we shipped with was eight hours, a perfect time to sleep on the game you just finished we thought," co-director Marcin Surma said.

    "You can leave it running overnight and have a fresh mind to see the results in the morning. We actually considered the eight hours quite lenient - we started with 24 hours but that felt a bit too restrictive: you'd end the same time of day you ended the game yesterday. And that's no fun!" [/eurogamer]

    The idea that I'll finish the game then go to bed for 8 hours to "sleep on it" - while it's still running on my PC or console - is ridiculous. I can "sleep on it" without it being on. That shows the Developers' attitude: they want to force you to reflect on their game.

    Whether you're environmentally aware or not (and we all kinda should be), I don't want my PC on for 8 hours or 2.5 hours running this game while I sleep. During the day, I have work to do.

    Is it too clever for its own good? No. It's a poorly thought-out ending to an otherwise disappointingly repetitive game.

    It's interesting (in a way) for attempting to encourage the sort of critique you'd expect to see in the Arts and turn it into a critique of computer games - but it does it in the most infuriating way. This is the Tracy Emin Bed equivalent of computer game art. If you're going to do something different, try to bring people along with you.

    If the story was clearer, perhaps the ending would make more sense, setting some context to allow gamers to consider and/or understand it. But the core game lacks so much story - it's just wave after wave of enemies - that you can only guess as to why the ending is the way it is.

    Those waves of enemies take place in one of 32 randomly generated spaces. You'll play through the same maps time and time again - and the number of maps you need to complete in each 'node' increases as you play. You'll play the same map several times in later nodes. Complete the maps without getting hit twice and you can advance to the next node.

    Repeat.

    [eurogamer]"After all, we don't want to punish the players, we want players to feel both the significance of what they themselves achieved during the ending, and to have a moment to be part of this experience more as performing along than just playing," Surma continued.

    "One of my favourite things is seeing people chime in on Discord saying, 'hey guys I'm doing it let's go!' and posting updates on how much time they have left, using that time to talk about their experience of the game and to just have a breather and have it all sink in." [/eurogamer]

    Gamers are capable of feeling the significance of game experiences without being forced into it.

    I'd argue that you're not taking "a breather" from the game while you're watching an in-game clock ticking down second by second through 2.5 hours of flickering CRT graphics.

    [eurogamer]"It's much more powerful for someone to filter the game through the lenses of their own experiences," Skorupka said. [/eurogamer]

    This is the sort of Arts garbage language that appears to mean a lot but means absolutely nothing. Obviously our individual experiences change how we look at things. Children know this. And again: I can appreciate how different games make me see the world without being forced to look at a ticking timer for 2.5 hours.

    The fact that co-director Marcin Surma said the 8 hour figure was "arbitrary" and that they originally considered 24 hours shows how poorly thought out this idea was. There was no rationale for 24 hours, or any rationale for reducing that by two thirds to 8 hours. No rationale for dropping it again to 2.5 hours.

    Pointless.    … Full Review »
See all user reviews »