As with much else about the Finals, this wowed me when I first saw it.
What an ingenious way to depict death in a multiplayer shooter, I thought.
It’s spectacular without being grisly, satisfying without being gross.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a sicko for virtual gore.
But this seemed like a smart, clean alternative.
The first team to successfully cash out twice wins.
But ah, a twist!
Further complexity is added by the composition of those teams.
Even at this level, The Finals is an entertaining, tightly designed shooter.
Movement is propulsive even when playing as the heavy, and navigating maps is fun in and of itself.
Combat deftly straddles the line between skill and tactics.
you might even level entire structures, trapping anyone inside in a twisted mess of rubble and debris.
On the flipside, the destruction system means the shape of a match can alter dramatically.
For example, you might venture to escape being attacked by smashing through a wall.
But that then creates a new thoroughfare other players might use.
So why the three stars?
Well, the game does have some logistical issues.
Heavy contestants, for example, have a much harder time moving around maps.
Not only are they markedly slower than other builds, they also have no traversal gadgets.
These can be the difference between qualification and knockout, which is much better.
My bigger issue with The Finals, however, starts with its AI voiceovers.
Basically, the Finals has two unseen commentators that contextualise and respond to events occurring in the game.
These roles have human actors behind their voices, though much of the dialogue you’ll hear is AI-generated.
And at first, I thought that was what The Finals was doing.
That would be a justifiable use case, as that isn’t something a human can feasibly do.
Not only is this kinda crummy, it also makes the game worse.
Quality-wise, the voiceovers aren’t egregiously bad.
You might hear an oddly intoned sentence or clipped phrase, but they do sound mostly like humans.
Unfortunately, they also sound profoundly boring.
It’s also a missed opportunity to put a real stamp of personality on the Finals.
For millions of people, their names are synonymous with those televisual experiences.
Crucially though, this isn’t an isolated issue.
In most areas of its presentation, The Finals lacks a distinctive identity.
Your characters are all just regular joes wearing grey tracksuits.
The game uses italicised impact for its font.
The weapons are all standard pistols, shotguns, HMGs and so forth.
The maps are clean and colourful, but there’s nothing especially memorable about them.
Even the allocated team names are bland.
You’d hear more imaginative examples at your local pub quiz!
More broadly, the entire game show premise is inconsistently applied.
It’s supposed to be a virtual game show, a game within a game scenario.
But then why is there a huge ring of spectators surrounding the map?
Why are the maps themed around real-world locations like Monaco and Las Vegas?
The Finals accessibility options
Colourblind modes for Deuteranopia, Tritanopia, Protanopia.
Subtitle Background Opacity slider.
Subtitle Text Size: Small, Medium, Large.
Motion Blur: Disabled/Enabled.
Crosshair parameters to adjust width, colour, outline colour, centre dot, centre dot radius and opacity.
Only the developers know why The Finals is so aesthetically anodyne.
This is why I feel queasy that The Finals' most distinctive visual flourish is a shower of coins.
And yes, most games are made with the hope of a financial payoff at the end.
But I don’t want tofeelthat desire from them while I’m playing.
The combat and destruction tech make it worth a few hours of your time.
A copy of The Finals was independently sourced for review by Eurogamer.
