Life is Strange: Reunion rumors sound like bad fanfiction
Life is Strange fans weren't all that impressed with Double Exposure, but the alleged sequel making the rounds online sounds even worse.
Published 20 hours ago
The rumored sequel threatens to unravel what made the original Life is Strange great
Image: Square Enix
Sign in to your Polygon account
Let’s start this off with a bang: I thoroughly enjoyed Life is Strange: Double Exposure. Now that I’ve successfully scared off everyone with that controversial opinion, I’ll continue by saying that my enjoyment of Double Exposure, which follows protagonist Max Caulfield in her university years, is exactly why the rumored next game from the well-loved narrative series, Life is Strange: Reunion, has me nervous.
According to a new leak from PEGI, the European game ratings board, Life is Strange: Reunion will reunite both Max and her bestie-slash-ex-girlfriend Chloe Price at Caledon University. But something ominous lurks in the background that will no doubt throw a spanner in the works.
Here’s the now-deleted description (helpfully preserved by fans over on Reddit), from the PEGI summary:
"Chloe Price was Max Caulfield’s partner in time… Losing her is Max’s greatest regret. Now Chloe has come to Caledon University. Haunted by nightmares and impossible memories, Chloe needs Max’s help. But Max is already in crisis: in three days, a deadly inferno will destroy the campus."
Image: Square Enix
Regardless of whether this summary is legitimate — the concept behind Reunion feels like one last desperate attempt to save the Life is Strange franchise from audience apathy. Double Exposure was a “large loss” for publisher Square Enix, and Max’s return wasn’t the sure-fire hit that the company thought it was going to be. The reason for that varies depending on who you ask, but the lack of Max and Chloe within Double Exposure — despite that relationship being the heart of the original game — certainly didn’t help.
Even so, the idea of Reunion leaves me cold. The biggest choice in the original game — and one that still garners heated discussion a decade later — is whether Max will save Arcadia Bay or Chloe. It’s a choice with no real right answers, and so, despite loving Chloe dearly, I couldn’t justify sacrificing a whole town like that. For all its faults, Double Exposure respects both choices, though if you let Chloe live, it’s revealed she and Max “grew apart.” While some fans were justifiably upset about that, it was an outcome that felt realistic to me, considering the overwhelming guilt Chloe must have felt to be the reason why Max allows Arcadia Bay to get destroyed by a tornado.
If Reunion brings Chloe back for good, the emotional turmoil that Max has faced immediately gets swept under the rug. I enjoy Chloe very much, but not enough to completely ignore the well-woven tale of who she is and the importance she has to Max and the world of Life is Strange. Both her outcomes and how they affect her role in Double Exposure — her alive vs her dead — felt justified to me. For Reunion to bring her back a second time would undermine the existing story, and invalidate player choices in a way that feels unforgivable for an interactive medium like video games.
Image: Square Enix
Worse still, I can already see how Reunion would justify such a decision. Max merged two universes at the close of Double Exposure: one in which her friend Safi is alive and the other in which she is dead. That merger ultimately saved Safi from being killed. While we don’t see the broader ramifications of that choice by the end of the game, it wouldn’t surprise me if this rumored sequel also allowed Max to combine the saving Arcadia Bay and saving Chloe endings. That decision might make some fans happy, but it feels almost patronizing in its appeasement.
One of the best things about the original Life is Strange is that, ultimately, it’s a tragedy. If Reunion turns out to be real, then it seems obvious to me that Deck Nine and Square Enix have completely forgotten that. If I wanted Life is Strange fanfic, I’d head to AO3.