Wolverine’s QTEs: The Real Issue Lies Beyond Missing Fail States

Marvel’s Wolverine, the latest superhero action title from Insomniac, hit the shelves this week and has sparked a mixed response from players. One particular feature drawing ire on social media is the game’s no-fail quick time events (QTEs). While this mechanic certainly warrants some critique, the real issue isn’t the absence of a fail state; it’s the lack of engaging, creative consequences that follow.

Released exclusively for the PS5 on September 15, Marvel’s Wolverine is primarily a classic arcade-style beat ’em up, boasting stunning graphics. However, the online chatter has been anything but calm. A common complaint is that the game feels overly simplistic, as if it assumes players are inexperienced and unable to navigate its three-dimensional world without constant guidance.

A notable gaming critic encapsulated many of these sentiments in a review that has garnered millions of views:

Do we really need a scent trail, GPS markers, white-painted platforms, and literal arrows to guide us through a linear game? Perhaps not, but maybe we do? It’s a reminder of an editorial that suggested we might not be as clever as we think.

Players have also taken issue with the motorcycle segments, and for good reason. If you steer incorrectly, you can crash into a truck, but if you let go of the controls, Wolverine will navigate the course on his own, bouncing off obstacles and hugging the roadside. After dying multiple times in these sequences, I found it amusing that my attempts to avoid failure only led to more of it. Sometimes, it felt like I’d have been better off not touching the controller at all.

Now, let’s dive into the QTEs.

Throughout the game, players encounter various prompts to press shoulder or face buttons. Hit the right shoulder button, and Wolverine will stab with one claw; hit the left, and he’ll use the other. Press both simultaneously, and you get the idea.

The catch? Even if you hit the wrong buttons, Wolverine will still complete the actions, allowing you to progress. If you don’t press anything, he’ll still move forward. There’s no traditional way to “lose,” as losing is often defined by having to restart from the last checkpoint.

This raises an important question: What was the purpose of including these sequences in the first place? Context is key here, as there are certainly more engaging ways to implement QTEs.

My first experience with QTEs was in Resident Evil 4, which popularized their use. In one memorable scene, villagers roll a boulder down a hill, and I had to mash a button to escape. I also had to hit two more buttons to dodge at the last second. Fail to do so, and the boulder would crush me.

Two aspects of this sequence stand out. First, the button prompts are contextual. The frantic button mashing to run makes sense in the heat of the moment, while the final dodge requires pressing two buttons simultaneously, reflecting the complexity of the action.

Second, there are multiple outcomes beyond just dying. If you press the final prompt too early, you’ll dodge behind a rock; press it late, and you’ll end up behind a tree. While the functional result is similar, the narrative context changes.

Later, when facing Krauser in a knife fight, the tension ramps up. The button prompts come quickly, mirroring Leon’s frantic state. Fail once, and it’s game over.

In Heavy Rain, there’s an early fight scene between Scott Shelby and Troy the pimp that highlights two important points. First, the fight’s outcome depends on successfully completing most QTEs—you can miss a few and still win. QTEs don’t have to be an all-or-nothing affair.

Second, at one point, the game requires a complex move—rotating the joystick for a hook punch followed by a throw. This movement feels intuitive and mirrors the character’s actions.

These examples illustrate that the effectiveness of QTEs lies in their application and narrative integration. They aren’t inherently improved by simply having a fail state. In Wolverine, it would feel thematically inconsistent to restart after failing a QTE, as it undermines the power fantasy of being Wolverine.

Generally, Wolverine’s QTEs lack the intensity of those in games like Resident Evil 4; they unfold slowly and predictably, designed to enhance the feeling of heroism. After all, Wolverine is the character most likely to survive a catastrophic mistake, thanks to his healing factor.

The real issue with these QTEs is their lack of meaningful follow-through. Players have shared side-by-side videos showing the minimal differences between successfully completing a QTE and failing one:

Imagine if Insomniac had created different cutscenes for winning or losing the arm-wrestling match, or provided varied character quips based on the outcome. That would add a layer of entertainment.

Now, consider applying that logic to the QTE fight scenes. Players wouldn’t mind if Wolverine didn’t die or “fail,” as long as there were visual consequences for doing so. We should see him get injured, perhaps stumbling into the next encounter nearly dead, with no room for error. Maybe the fail state could vary based on how many actions were missed, rather than a simple succeed-or-fail approach.

Additionally, the requested actions are overly simplistic—mostly single-button presses instead of more complex combinations or joystick movements. The games I mentioned earlier understood the value of using joystick rotations to mimic character movements, which feels like a step backward.

I reviewed Marvel’s Wolverine and genuinely enjoyed it. While I think the claims of it being too easy are exaggerated (and if it feels too easy, just adjust the difficulty), the criticism surrounding the QTEs is more compelling. Players are right to express their frustration, but they often conflate it with the game’s perceived simplicity, which I believe is a less valid argument. The QTEs represent a distinct issue that goes beyond difficulty and deserves its own discussion, as they highlight a broader problem with player engagement.

The no-fail QTEs aren’t an example of the game being “dumbed down.” Instead, they reflect a lack of creative follow-through. To foster a more productive conversation about gaming, we need to be precise and accurate in our critiques. This way, we can shift our frustration from developers for the wrong reasons to addressing the right ones.