SOMA

The majority of critics praised SOMA’s narrative for its depth, philosophical complexity, and immersive exploration of existential themes. Polygon highlighted the game’s “heady themes” and its ability to tackle moral conundrums with “scope and intensity,” while We Got This Covered and Metro GameCentral lauded its focus on consciousness, identity, and humanity, comparing it to the works of Philip K. Dick. Push Square and GameTrailers emphasized the emotional and moral weight of the story, noting its “powerful conclusion” and “moral quandaries” that challenge players’ perceptions of life and values. Critics like Adventure Gamers and Digital Chumps commended the “deep philosophical questions” and “well-written and paced story,” with the latter describing it as “engrossing” and increasingly intriguing as the game progresses. The narrative’s reliance on environmental storytelling, character interactions, and fragmented lore—such as voice logs, emails, and files—was frequently cited as a strength, offering a “chilling sci-fi story” (3DJuegos) and a “haunting narrative about posthumanism” (Kill Screen). These elements collectively created a “thought-provoking masterpiece” (Gamers’ Temple) that resonated with players seeking intellectual engagement over traditional action-driven gameplay. However, some critics noted limitations in the story’s execution. GRYOnline.pl criticized the narrative for being “engaging and flows well” but ultimately “disappoints in its content and depth,” suggesting it failed to fully capitalize on its ambitious themes. Shacknews similarly pointed out that while the game introduces existential questions, it “lacks strong emotional impact,” and The Jimquisition acknowledged that the story’s philosophical weight sometimes felt “less horror-focused” than expected, prioritizing introspection over visceral scares. A few reviewers, like ZTGD and COGconnected, mentioned that optional decisions had “no impact,” which could diminish the sense of agency, while others, such as TheSixthAxis, felt the narrative’s “chilling conclusion” was offset by its slow pacing. Despite these critiques, the consensus was that the story’s intellectual and ethical inquiries were compelling enough to overshadow such flaws, with many agreeing that its exploration of humanity, consciousness, and morality was its defining strength. Overall, the critical reception of SOMA’s story leaned overwhelmingly positive, with reviewers across platforms praising its ability to provoke deep reflection and its unique approach to narrative-driven gameplay. While a handful of critics, including GRYOnline.pl and Shacknews, expressed reservations about emotional resonance or depth, the majority—such as Polygon, We Got This Covered, and GameTrailers—celebrated its “daringly complex” and “philosophic” exploration of human identity and post-human ethics. The game’s focus on moral ambiguity, psychological horror, and existential dread was seen as a bold departure from conventional storytelling, with many noting its lasting impact and ability to leave players “questioning what it means to be considered a person” (Arcade Sushi). Even the minor criticisms were framed as trade-offs for the game’s ambitious vision, with the majority agreeing that SOMA delivered a “masterful creation” (Gaming Nexus) and a “rich storytelling experience” (PC Gamer) that set it apart as a standout in the genre.

The gameplay of SOMA receives praise for its atmospheric immersion, narrative-driven design, and innovative mechanics. Critics like Adventure Gamers highlight the seamless integration of gameplay with philosophical themes, emphasizing how puzzles and interactions are deeply tied to the story, creating a cohesive and thought-provoking experience. Polygon notes the game’s variety, with sections that shift between eerie exploration, stealth-based encounters, and puzzle-solving, keeping players engaged through dynamic challenges. Guardian commends the detailed environments and tactile interactions, while God is a Geek appreciates the "click-and-drag" mechanics that foster a fully interactive world. The game’s focus on survival horror without combat is seen as a strength by Game Informer and Destructoid, who argue that the absence of weapons heightens tension and encourages strategic thinking. Additionally, PC Gamer and Twinfinite acknowledge the clever puzzle design and the emphasis on stealth, which, despite their limitations, contribute to a unique survival experience. However, several critics point to significant drawbacks in SOMA’s gameplay, particularly its lack of combat, repetitive mechanics, and technical shortcomings. Hardcore Gamer and Slant Magazine criticize the "drag" of gameplay, calling it simplistic and comparing it to low-budget predecessors like BioShock or Dead Space. COGconnected and Windows Central note clunky controls and finicky interactive detection, while Push Square and PC Gamer highlight the frustration of trial-and-error stealth and underwhelming enemy design. Gameplanet and Digitally Downloaded point to puzzles that are either too easy or unnecessarily obtuse, and DarkStation and Riot Pixels describe the stealth elements as limited and unpolished. The Xbox One version’s "Safe Mode" is seen as a double-edged sword—while it lets players focus on the story (TheXboxHub), it detracts from the horror experience (XBLA Fans). These critiques often center on a perceived lack of depth and polish, with some feeling the game prioritizes narrative over engaging mechanics. Overall, the consensus among critics is that SOMA’s gameplay is a polarizing blend of atmospheric storytelling and minimalist survival mechanics. While it excels in creating tension through exploration, environmental manipulation, and morally complex scenarios (Adventure Gamers, GameSpot), its reliance on stealth and absence of combat draw criticism for being repetitive or underdeveloped (Hardcore Gamer, COGconnected). Many acknowledge the game’s strengths in level design and narrative cohesion (Polygon, 3DJuegos), but also its flaws, such as unclear objectives (PlayStation LifeStyle) and frustrating puzzle logic (Gameplanet). Despite these issues, the game’s emphasis on psychological horror and player agency in determining outcomes (GamingTrend, Post Arcade) resonates with those who value its thematic depth over traditional action. While not without its weaknesses, SOMA is generally seen as a bold, if imperfect, experiment in survival horror that prioritizes atmosphere and story over conventional gameplay mechanics.

The graphics and visual design of SOMA received widespread praise for their atmospheric immersion, environmental storytelling, and attention to detail, particularly in creating a haunting, claustrophobic horror experience. Critics like PC Gamer highlighted the game’s “masterpiece visually” with “detailed environments, fantastic lighting, and atmospheric setting,” while IGN lauded its “eerie bio-mechanical spaces” and “terrifying atmosphere reminiscent of Giger’s designs.” The underwater setting of PATHOS-II was frequently celebrated, with Polygon noting its “lived-in” feel and “astonishing views,” and Riot Pixels describing it as “stunning and realistic.” Guardian and GameSpot emphasized the game’s ability to blend retro-futuristic aesthetics with immersive world-building, while Digital Chumps and Game Informer praised the “excellent lighting” and “sense of complete isolation.” Many critics, including Shacknews and The Escapist, noted how the visual design amplified the game’s horror through sensory deprivation and eerie, organic environments. However, several critics pointed out technical and aesthetic shortcomings. Gameplanet criticized the “so-so” visuals and lack of graphics options, while Gamers’ Temple and The Digital Fix highlighted issues like “character models lacking detail,” “unconvincing water animations,” and “unstable frame rates” on PS4. COGconnected and DarkZero mentioned overuse of visual effects like chromatic aberration, which could be “headache-inducing” or hinder visibility. Shacknews and The SixteenthAxis noted the game’s linear design and “clumsy” underwater exploration, while Hooked Gamers and The Escapist found the monster designs “poorly visualized” or “not very disturbing up close.” PlayStation LifeStyle and Windows Central pointed to technical flaws like “lighting inadequacies” and “long load times,” which occasionally detracted from the experience. These critiques often centered on the game’s technical limitations and compromises, particularly on older hardware. Despite these flaws, the overall consensus among critics leans toward admiration for SOMA’s visual design as a cohesive and immersive horror experience. While Gameplanet and Gamers’ Temple acknowledged technical shortcomings, PC Gamer and IGN argued that the game’s “stunning” environments and “terrifying atmosphere” more than compensated for its imperfections. Polygon and Quarter to Three praised the “stunning and immersive environments” and “unique, imaginative world,” while God is a Geek and MondoXbox highlighted the “terrifying and immersive experience” enhanced by visual and auditory cues. The game’s ability to evoke dread through lighting, environmental design, and creature aesthetics—despite its technical limitations—was a recurring strength. Critics like Guardian and Ragequit.gr noted that SOMA’s visuals “effectively create a sense of isolation,” cementing its reputation as a standout entry in the survival horror genre.

The sound design and music in SOMA are overwhelmingly praised by critics for their ability to craft a deeply immersive and atmospheric horror experience. Multiple reviewers highlight how environmental audio elements—such as groans, metallic creaks, airlock hisses, and dripping fluids—elevate the game’s sense of isolation and tension. PCWorld and games(TM) commend the meticulous attention to detail in sound effects, noting they “make the world come alive” and “enhance the eerie atmosphere.” Xbox Tavern draws comparisons to Alien Isolation, emphasizing the clanking noises and loud thuds that evoke a visceral sense of dread. Gameplanet and The Jimquisition praise the synergy between the soundtrack and sound design, with the latter specifically noting “pitch-perfect music when used.” TheSixthAxis and PC Gamer describe the audio as “superb,” with screen glitches and distorted visuals amplifying the horror, while Adventure Gamers and GameOver.gr laud the “exceptional sound design” and “immersive surround sound” that heighten the game’s dark, sci-fi setting. The use of silence, as noted by Generación Xbox, and the haunting, dynamic soundscapes from the HPL3 engine (per Eurogamer Italy) further underscore the technical and creative strengths of the audio team. While the sound design and music receive widespread acclaim, some critics point to minor shortcomings in voice acting. We Got This Covered and Slant Magazine note that the voice acting “is not exceptional” or “doesn’t impress,” with PlayStation LifeStyle specifically criticizing the main character’s performance as “underwhelming.” Shacknews acknowledges that repetitive monster encounters and gameplay mechanics slightly undermine suspense, though this critique is more about design than audio. VideoGamer describes the voice acting as “a bit ropey,” while COGconnected and XBLA Fans focus on the sound design’s strengths, leaving voice acting as a secondary concern. Despite these criticisms, the majority of reviewers frame the audio as a cornerstone of the game’s horror, with The Escapist and Digital Chumps emphasizing how the sound design “adds to the unsettling atmosphere” and “complements the gameplay.” The music, while occasionally understated, is generally seen as a fitting and effective tool for building tension, with Game Revolution praising its “grand dreamscape-like melodies” that align with the game’s underwater exploration. Overall, the consensus among critics is that SOMA’s sound design and music are standout features that significantly enhance its horror and immersion. While a few reviewers mention voice acting as a weak point, the overwhelming majority celebrate the audio’s role in creating a “heart-in-your-throat” experience (Gameplanet), “total dread” (Metro GameCentral), and a “terrifying” atmosphere (God is a Geek). PC Gamer and Xbox Tavern highlight how the audio cues, from distorted visuals to menacing growls, work in tandem with the game’s sci-fi setting to evoke unease. Even Shacknews, which critiques the game’s repetitive mechanics, acknowledges the sound design’s contribution to tension. The combination of environmental sounds, strategic use of silence, and a haunting score is repeatedly cited as essential to SOMA’s success, with ZTGD and GamingTrend noting the “rich soundscape” and “exceptional” audio work. These elements collectively establish SOMA as a benchmark for atmospheric horror, with its audio design being a critical factor in its ability to unsettle and engage players.

The voice acting in SOMA receives widespread praise for its quality and immersive contributions. Critics like Attack of the Fanboy highlight that it "perfectly captures the emotions of characters," adding depth to their development and enhancing player immersion. Gamers' Temple and The Digital Fix note that all character voice overs are well done, enriching the atmosphere through both direct interactions and audio files. TheSixthAxis commends the "full and well-done" voice acting for dead bodies and companion character Catherine, while Metro GameCentral and PlayStation LifeStyle appreciate the script's writing and the dynamic between Simon and Catherine. Destructoid and Gaming Nexus emphasize how it contributes to immersion and anxiety, with GameSpot praising the "high quality" interactions between the protagonist and his companion. These reviews underscore the voice acting as a key strength, particularly in fostering emotional engagement and narrative cohesion. However, several critics point to notable shortcomings. PC Gamer criticizes the "amateurish" and "flat" performance of the main character, Simon, which lacks emotional depth and detracts from immersion. Games.cz notes that characters' emotional responses sometimes feel "disconnected from the player's experience," while PlaySense finds the voice acting "occasionally forced." TrueAchievements highlights uneven performances, with the lead actors being "inconsistent," and The Jimquisition mentions the antagonist's "a little flat" delivery. Quarter to Three compares it unfavorably to games like Last of Us or Uncharted, calling it "flat" in some areas, though the relationship between Simon and Catherine is still seen as a driving force. GRYOnline.pl and Game Rant also critique Simon's unconvincing portrayal, with the latter noting his moral debates are "a bit on-the-nose." These critiques suggest that while the supporting cast and dialogue are strong, the protagonist's performance is a recurring weak point. Overall, the consensus leans positive but acknowledges mixed experiences. Most reviewers agree that the voice acting elevates the game's storytelling and atmosphere, with The Escapist and Merlin'in Kazanı praising its authenticity and emotional weight. However, the protagonist's performance remains a divisive issue, as highlighted by PC Gamer and Quarter to Three, who note it affects immersion. While some critics like Arcade Sushi and We Got This Covered describe it as "hit or miss" or "not award-winning," the majority view it as a solid, if not flawless, component of the game. The dynamic between Simon and Catherine, the script's quality, and the immersive world-building often compensate for inconsistencies, making the voice acting a significant but imperfect element of SOMA's success.

The technical performance of SOMA varies across platforms, with some positives noted. On the PC, critics like IGN Spain highlighted the game’s impressive technical work, detailed environments, and outstanding particle effects, while GRYOnline.pl observed that high-end systems run smoothly, and GameWatcher noted that the game performed perfectly in maximum graphics settings despite minor initial load times. The Nintendo Switch version, as reviewed by Cubed3, maintained a stable 30 FPS, with only minor frame rate drops during quick movements, and ZTGD acknowledged the port as running well with occasional stutters. The Xbox One version, per Windows Central, had a stable 30 FPS but suffered from input lag due to low frame rates, and Xbox Tavern and TheSixthAxis mentioned that frame-rate drops were infrequent and not overly intrusive. These platforms generally showcased better stability and performance compared to the PS4, with some critics noting that Frictional Games’ attention to detail in visuals and environments was a standout feature. However, the PS4 version faced significant technical challenges, with multiple critics like Gamers’ Temple and PlayStation LifeStyle citing unstable frame rates, long load times, and game-breaking bugs such as disappearing doors and audio issues. God is a Geek and Hardcore Gamer emphasized severe frame rate problems and frequent loading screens, while PSNStores and VideoGamer reported stuttering and freezing when entering new areas. Slant Magazine and The Digital Fix also criticized the PS4’s performance, with the latter noting that technical issues like juddering and long load times detracted from the experience. The Xbox One and PC versions had their own issues: COGconnected and DarkZero pointed to graphical glitches and frame hitches, while Ragequit.gr and Washington Post mentioned minor frame drops and occasional stuttering. The PC also faced texture muddiness and autosave-related freezes, as noted by Digital Chumps and Everyeye.it, though these were less severe than the PS4’s problems. The overall consensus among critics reveals that the PS4 version of SOMA is the most technically problematic, with consistent reports of slowdowns, crashes, and bugs that significantly impact immersion. In contrast, the Xbox One and PC versions received more balanced feedback, with the former offering a stable 30 FPS despite input lag and the latter showing strong performance on high-end systems but some graphical and frame-related hiccups. The Switch version, while less demanding, still faced minor frame rate issues. While Frictional Games addressed some concerns through patches, the PS4’s technical shortcomings were more persistent and severe, as highlighted by PlayStation LifeStyle and The Digital Fix. Critics like Xbox Tavern and ZTGD acknowledged that the Xbox One and Switch ports, though not flawless, were more forgiving, whereas the PC and PS4 versions required more patience and troubleshooting. The game’s technical performance, while not irreparable, left a mixed impression across platforms, with the PS4 bearing the brunt of the criticism.

The reviews of SOMA highlight several positive aspects of its replay value, particularly its narrative depth and thematic resonance. Critics like VideoGamer and Generación Xbox emphasize that the game’s slowly unfolding story and impactful ending leave a lasting impression, encouraging players to reflect on its existential themes. Game Revolution and Gaming Nexus note that optional exploration of side stories and audio diaries adds some replayability, even if the core narrative is linear. Additionally, GameCritics and Xbox Tavern acknowledge that the Safe Mode feature enhances accessibility, allowing players to focus on the story without the pressure of survival mechanics, which broadens its appeal. These elements suggest that while SOMA is not designed for multiple playthroughs, its emotional and philosophical impact can justify revisiting it for some players. However, the majority of critics point to significant limitations in replay value. Gamers’ Temple and Generación Xbox stress that the game offers only a single ending and no branching paths, reducing incentives for repeated play. Shacknews and IGN Spain criticize the linear design and lack of gameplay variety, while TrueAchievements and GameCritics argue that Safe Mode diminishes the challenge and immersion, making the experience feel less engaging on subsequent runs. Everyeye.it and IGN Spain also note the absence of dynamic story changes based on player choices, further limiting replayability. Additionally, the short playtime (around 10 hours) and minimal extra content, as highlighted by PSNStores and Cubed3, leave many feeling the game lacks the depth required for multiple sessions. These critiques underscore a general consensus that SOMA prioritizes storytelling over longevity. Overall, the critics’ opinions reflect a mixed but largely cautious view of SOMA’s replay value. While its narrative and thematic elements are praised for their depth and emotional weight—VideoGamer and Ragequit.gr note the game’s ability to spark philosophical discussions—the structural limitations of its design and lack of optional content are seen as major drawbacks. Game Revolution and Gaming Nexus offer some optimism about exploration, but most agree that the game’s single-playthrough focus and linear progression make it a one-time experience. The Safe Mode, while beneficial for accessibility, is often cited as a trade-off that reduces the game’s challenge and replay appeal. Ultimately, SOMA is viewed as a compelling, story-driven experience rather than a game designed for repeated play, with its value lying more in its narrative impact than in its mechanics or content variety.