Where WE review our games
- Thread starter Rub'Rum
- Start date
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
First thoughts - Company of Heroes 2
Synopsis for those familiar with Company of Heroes: If you weren't expecting to pay full game price for a standalone expansion with added snow maps (and the much-touted weather effects are a feature of specific maps, not the core game mechanics), you haven't been paying attention to the press releases, and this may not be the game for you.
Much has, indeed, been made of how it isn't much different from the original (a game one arguably wouldn't want much deviation from), despite a few changes to flamethrowers, vehicle capturing and resource points, commander abilities, and a new army. My own experience with the beta argues in favour of seemingly subtle changes that drastically change the feel of the game, and not always in a good way.
In the original CoH, games progressed methodically - you built up a territory, established supply lines, and then went for the victory points. Partly it may be my inexperience with the new units, but CoH 2 feels much more frenetic, and at least pitched against the AI the gameplay is much more reminiscent of Dawn of War II, with a focus on 'quick grabs' of victory points and on harassment. The whole feels a lot more 'gamey' than the first game, ironically given some of the emphasis on added 'realism' in certain game elements. The faster gameplay makes it difficult to gain full appreciation for some of the interesting new elements, such as 'true line of sight' (much higher casualty rates, much reduced field defence options - particularly for the Soviets - and the fragility of buildings that makes them a death trap make setting up ambushes a lot more difficult) and the importance of keeping resource points for their ability to tell you where the enemy is as well as for the resources. Though there is a rather bizarre mechanic that allows a player to have line of sight from all his wounded casualties until they're killed or die, although exactly how they impart this information to your army when none look in a fit state to operate radios is never made clear.
Partly the 'gamey' feel results from the extraordinarily bad fit of the game to the setting - this is the Eastern Front, a battlefield known for its gigantic set-piece battles between monolithic leviathans, however it's a game with much more dynamic harassment-based gameplay than the original, smaller maps, and a population cap of 100 (up to 18 of which may be eaten by a single unit, such as a T-34). CoH itself focused on the Normandy Invasion, and quite often on special forces actions behind the lines, that it portrayed with a semblance of realism. CoH2 really should have gone for a less stereotyped choice than the Eastern Front - the North Africa theater, training ground for the SAS and the site of set-piece tank battles, would have been the best fit for the game mechanics.
Partly also it's details of the interface, which is functionally similar to CoH1 but shinier, and which replaces the more military-style sparseness of the first game's layout, with its unit kill roster and vehicle schematic diagrams to show damage, with large amounts of explanatory text and more colourful unit ability icons. It just looks less like something you might see when commanding an army and more something you'd see when playing a game. Finally there's the unit ability roster. In CoH1 units had limited abilities, and those mostly defined by the weapons they were carrying. In CoH2 Soviet conscripts can improve their effectiveness by shouting a battlecry. The 'rock-paper-scissors' element of gameplay seems to be heavily exaggerated compared with the first game, but that may just be my experience playing mostly Soviets (who seem very specialised and with very little AT outside certain commander abilities and their own armour). Supposedly snipers and flame weapons (which are abundant) can kill vehicle crew now, which should help to give you more options for dealing with certain unit types, however in my experience this doesn't happen, and keeping a sniper where he can shoot tanks will usually result in a dead sniper.
The weather effects are nice, but again the game pace limits the opportunity to enjoy/take advantage of them - with small maps and fast movement generally, I have yet to really notice the effects of snow. And the periodic blizzards, while serving a game function, feel unnecessary and none-too-subtle when it would be nice to have some maps where you can take tactical advantage of the less overstated weather effects rather than being forced to spam tanks (which don't suffer adverse effects in blizzards) OR ELSE. In a game with otherwise close attention to detail, it's also a bit odd that the blizzards affect your soldiers but not the landscape - broken ice won't refreeze, snow on the ground won't become heavier, tracks already made in snow won't be obscured (at least that I've noticed).
The auto-unlocks for commander abilities make me feel less in control, and also result in large surpluses of command points that don't do anything since the new commander lines are far less CP-intensive than the old trees. The corollary being, of course, that you have many fewer abilities to play with per commander (only five, in fact). Mostly, however, the new system plays to the faster game pace (all 1 CP abilities unlock with the first command point, for instance), and so you need to be very familiar with what your chosen commander does in order to avoid becoming lost or not using the abilities to full effect.
As a game, so far I'm enjoying CoH2 a lot, and it's plainly a lot more heavily-focused on multiplayer than the first game with an ingenious system of multiplayer rewards (and by all accounts the single-player campaign - disappointingly, available for one side only as in the first game's base release - is much weaker than those in CoH), but long-term I don't think it will have the immersion of the original. With the original I could feel I was taking part in major actions in WWII - with CoH II I feel I'm playing an admittedly very well-designed game.
EDIT: And now that the game's officially been released and is no longer an open beta, I can add one more thing: no manual. It's clear CoH 2 is very heavily targeting CoH players - there's only one (good, but limited in scope and rushed) tutorial mission, and while the new icons that tell you which parts of a vehicle have been damaged are a nice touch, there's no glossary to which icons mean what, and most are not intuitive (aside from the red crosshair for "main gun damaged"). The game also hasn't solved the problem that most of the white weapon upgrade icons look the same, at least at a glance, with nothing to remind you whether the squad is armed for AT or AP (although flamethrowers come with a red flame icon which serves to distinguish them).
Synopsis for those familiar with Company of Heroes: If you weren't expecting to pay full game price for a standalone expansion with added snow maps (and the much-touted weather effects are a feature of specific maps, not the core game mechanics), you haven't been paying attention to the press releases, and this may not be the game for you.
Much has, indeed, been made of how it isn't much different from the original (a game one arguably wouldn't want much deviation from), despite a few changes to flamethrowers, vehicle capturing and resource points, commander abilities, and a new army. My own experience with the beta argues in favour of seemingly subtle changes that drastically change the feel of the game, and not always in a good way.
In the original CoH, games progressed methodically - you built up a territory, established supply lines, and then went for the victory points. Partly it may be my inexperience with the new units, but CoH 2 feels much more frenetic, and at least pitched against the AI the gameplay is much more reminiscent of Dawn of War II, with a focus on 'quick grabs' of victory points and on harassment. The whole feels a lot more 'gamey' than the first game, ironically given some of the emphasis on added 'realism' in certain game elements. The faster gameplay makes it difficult to gain full appreciation for some of the interesting new elements, such as 'true line of sight' (much higher casualty rates, much reduced field defence options - particularly for the Soviets - and the fragility of buildings that makes them a death trap make setting up ambushes a lot more difficult) and the importance of keeping resource points for their ability to tell you where the enemy is as well as for the resources. Though there is a rather bizarre mechanic that allows a player to have line of sight from all his wounded casualties until they're killed or die, although exactly how they impart this information to your army when none look in a fit state to operate radios is never made clear.
Partly the 'gamey' feel results from the extraordinarily bad fit of the game to the setting - this is the Eastern Front, a battlefield known for its gigantic set-piece battles between monolithic leviathans, however it's a game with much more dynamic harassment-based gameplay than the original, smaller maps, and a population cap of 100 (up to 18 of which may be eaten by a single unit, such as a T-34). CoH itself focused on the Normandy Invasion, and quite often on special forces actions behind the lines, that it portrayed with a semblance of realism. CoH2 really should have gone for a less stereotyped choice than the Eastern Front - the North Africa theater, training ground for the SAS and the site of set-piece tank battles, would have been the best fit for the game mechanics.
Partly also it's details of the interface, which is functionally similar to CoH1 but shinier, and which replaces the more military-style sparseness of the first game's layout, with its unit kill roster and vehicle schematic diagrams to show damage, with large amounts of explanatory text and more colourful unit ability icons. It just looks less like something you might see when commanding an army and more something you'd see when playing a game. Finally there's the unit ability roster. In CoH1 units had limited abilities, and those mostly defined by the weapons they were carrying. In CoH2 Soviet conscripts can improve their effectiveness by shouting a battlecry. The 'rock-paper-scissors' element of gameplay seems to be heavily exaggerated compared with the first game, but that may just be my experience playing mostly Soviets (who seem very specialised and with very little AT outside certain commander abilities and their own armour). Supposedly snipers and flame weapons (which are abundant) can kill vehicle crew now, which should help to give you more options for dealing with certain unit types, however in my experience this doesn't happen, and keeping a sniper where he can shoot tanks will usually result in a dead sniper.
The weather effects are nice, but again the game pace limits the opportunity to enjoy/take advantage of them - with small maps and fast movement generally, I have yet to really notice the effects of snow. And the periodic blizzards, while serving a game function, feel unnecessary and none-too-subtle when it would be nice to have some maps where you can take tactical advantage of the less overstated weather effects rather than being forced to spam tanks (which don't suffer adverse effects in blizzards) OR ELSE. In a game with otherwise close attention to detail, it's also a bit odd that the blizzards affect your soldiers but not the landscape - broken ice won't refreeze, snow on the ground won't become heavier, tracks already made in snow won't be obscured (at least that I've noticed).
The auto-unlocks for commander abilities make me feel less in control, and also result in large surpluses of command points that don't do anything since the new commander lines are far less CP-intensive than the old trees. The corollary being, of course, that you have many fewer abilities to play with per commander (only five, in fact). Mostly, however, the new system plays to the faster game pace (all 1 CP abilities unlock with the first command point, for instance), and so you need to be very familiar with what your chosen commander does in order to avoid becoming lost or not using the abilities to full effect.
As a game, so far I'm enjoying CoH2 a lot, and it's plainly a lot more heavily-focused on multiplayer than the first game with an ingenious system of multiplayer rewards (and by all accounts the single-player campaign - disappointingly, available for one side only as in the first game's base release - is much weaker than those in CoH), but long-term I don't think it will have the immersion of the original. With the original I could feel I was taking part in major actions in WWII - with CoH II I feel I'm playing an admittedly very well-designed game.
EDIT: And now that the game's officially been released and is no longer an open beta, I can add one more thing: no manual. It's clear CoH 2 is very heavily targeting CoH players - there's only one (good, but limited in scope and rushed) tutorial mission, and while the new icons that tell you which parts of a vehicle have been damaged are a nice touch, there's no glossary to which icons mean what, and most are not intuitive (aside from the red crosshair for "main gun damaged"). The game also hasn't solved the problem that most of the white weapon upgrade icons look the same, at least at a glance, with nothing to remind you whether the squad is armed for AT or AP (although flamethrowers come with a red flame icon which serves to distinguish them).
civvver
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,855
Dead Space
First I should say this is the pc version I got off steam on a daily sale. I think it is a console port but it's well done. Some of the metacritic comments complain about the controls but I thought they were fine. It's typical mouse aim, aswd movement but it's pretty fluid once you adjust your mouse sensitivity. It's a 3rd person shooter though there is no cover aspect like mass effect, but you don't need it as only a few enemies shoot stuff at you.
I guess you would call Dead Space a sci fi horror survival shooter. Backstory is you're an engineer named Isaac on a team sent to repair this gigantic mining ship. You end up crash landing on the ship, find a crap load of zombies and have to find a way off. That's all I will say about the story because I don't want to give anything away. Let's just say the story is, erm, well it's predictable in the sense that you know the main hero in an action movie is going to save the day somehow, but while getting to that point, there's a ton of twists and a lot to discover. I thought the story was superb.
Now gameplay, it's not ground breaking but it's solid. The item drops are well balanced so you can customize Isaac in many different ways. I played it on easy because I was more interested in the overall experience and the story and it was not challenging at all but I feel like hard would be quite difficult. There were a few times on easy where I ran out of ammo but being easy it was no big deal. I can't imagine it on hard. Once you beat the game there's an impossible mode as well. Probably 80% of the zombies attack with melee so it's a lot of running from them and shooting before they reach you. So not a cover game but there is some strategy. Also there's some really cool parts where you're in zero g areas and can jump anywhere full 360. It's really cool. For a first game of a series and from 2008 it's well done.
The interface also deserves a nod. There is no hud. Your hp is built into Isaac's suit as some gauges. You can bring up maps and logs and stuff from your suit but it displays in front of you without pausing so it's like you're really looking at it in real time. It's very immersive and very cool. I sometimes got annoyed at the camera perspective that I couldn't zoom or see more but that's really the point. The developers don't want you to see enemies coming from your side until it's too late. You will be walking around scoping walls and corners like crazy in anticipation of zombies. It's very tense.
Graphics are very good. Some of the environments were stunning like the view of the ship from the outside. The sound is genuinely creepy. And the music, wow. It plays like a movie, it's really good for one and it gets all intense and dramatic right before zombies pop into your face.
The one bad thing I will say is it takes forever to load a save and between levels. There's 12 levels called chapters but they're about an hour each with no loads in each level. So at least you don't load often.
My final remarks, it is really scary. From the beginning of the game you're thrown right into the middle of these zombies and it's just hearthumping action and suspense. About 2/3rds in you finally start to mellow out and say ok I've seen all these zombies jumping out of nowhere before and it's starts to wear off a bit. But I still played mostly with the lights on lol. The game is also pretty short as far as games go, only about 10-12 hours for a playthrough but I think it works for two reasons. One it's intended that you up the difficulty and play it again, and two the flow of the game fits really well into that span. There's enough to do but if it were twice as long it would get repetitive. It flows really well between action and dialogue/story elements. So while it's kind of short I definitely got my money's worth.
The scores:
Graphics 8/10
Sound and music 9/10
Gameplay 8/10
Story and writing 9/10
Overall 85%
I'd highly recommend if you like 3rd person shooters or scary games.
First I should say this is the pc version I got off steam on a daily sale. I think it is a console port but it's well done. Some of the metacritic comments complain about the controls but I thought they were fine. It's typical mouse aim, aswd movement but it's pretty fluid once you adjust your mouse sensitivity. It's a 3rd person shooter though there is no cover aspect like mass effect, but you don't need it as only a few enemies shoot stuff at you.
I guess you would call Dead Space a sci fi horror survival shooter. Backstory is you're an engineer named Isaac on a team sent to repair this gigantic mining ship. You end up crash landing on the ship, find a crap load of zombies and have to find a way off. That's all I will say about the story because I don't want to give anything away. Let's just say the story is, erm, well it's predictable in the sense that you know the main hero in an action movie is going to save the day somehow, but while getting to that point, there's a ton of twists and a lot to discover. I thought the story was superb.
Now gameplay, it's not ground breaking but it's solid. The item drops are well balanced so you can customize Isaac in many different ways. I played it on easy because I was more interested in the overall experience and the story and it was not challenging at all but I feel like hard would be quite difficult. There were a few times on easy where I ran out of ammo but being easy it was no big deal. I can't imagine it on hard. Once you beat the game there's an impossible mode as well. Probably 80% of the zombies attack with melee so it's a lot of running from them and shooting before they reach you. So not a cover game but there is some strategy. Also there's some really cool parts where you're in zero g areas and can jump anywhere full 360. It's really cool. For a first game of a series and from 2008 it's well done.
The interface also deserves a nod. There is no hud. Your hp is built into Isaac's suit as some gauges. You can bring up maps and logs and stuff from your suit but it displays in front of you without pausing so it's like you're really looking at it in real time. It's very immersive and very cool. I sometimes got annoyed at the camera perspective that I couldn't zoom or see more but that's really the point. The developers don't want you to see enemies coming from your side until it's too late. You will be walking around scoping walls and corners like crazy in anticipation of zombies. It's very tense.
Graphics are very good. Some of the environments were stunning like the view of the ship from the outside. The sound is genuinely creepy. And the music, wow. It plays like a movie, it's really good for one and it gets all intense and dramatic right before zombies pop into your face.
The one bad thing I will say is it takes forever to load a save and between levels. There's 12 levels called chapters but they're about an hour each with no loads in each level. So at least you don't load often.
My final remarks, it is really scary. From the beginning of the game you're thrown right into the middle of these zombies and it's just hearthumping action and suspense. About 2/3rds in you finally start to mellow out and say ok I've seen all these zombies jumping out of nowhere before and it's starts to wear off a bit. But I still played mostly with the lights on lol. The game is also pretty short as far as games go, only about 10-12 hours for a playthrough but I think it works for two reasons. One it's intended that you up the difficulty and play it again, and two the flow of the game fits really well into that span. There's enough to do but if it were twice as long it would get repetitive. It flows really well between action and dialogue/story elements. So while it's kind of short I definitely got my money's worth.
The scores:
Graphics 8/10
Sound and music 9/10
Gameplay 8/10
Story and writing 9/10
Overall 85%
I'd highly recommend if you like 3rd person shooters or scary games.
civvver
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,855
Dead Space 2
I couldn't get enough of dead space so I went right into 2 as soon as I finished 1. Here is the review while it's fresh.
It takes place years after the first one with you still playing Isaac Clarke. Need a spoiler here for the story round up because it gives away the ending of the first one:
Again the story is awesome. The writing is really good with more than a couple twists. I also like that you're on a space station mining colony and there's actual people around this time, not just a huge empty ship. Isaac talks this time around, overall it's just more engaging. It is however much less scary. I think the reason why is you don't feel so alone and everything feels more open. Fighting solo on a ship full of dead people made for a lot of scary claustrophobia. The second game has a different feel. It's not better or worse just different. I did really enjoy the varied level environments though. The first one had great level design but this one has that as well as variety in scenery.
The gameplay is largely the same but better. Movement is smoother. Zero g has been totally redone so you fly around in it now instead of just jumping from platform to platform. It's less disorienting and better. There's more weapons and armor which is cool and the secondary fire modes have been redone to make more sense. There are more enemy types too.
Again it's short. Only about 9 hours. But again it's designed to be played through again on hard modes. I didn't try the hard core mode you unlock once beating the game but it said you only get three saves the whole game. That sounds brutal, losing a couple hours progress if you die.
Graphics are great, sound and music are fitting. Overall a great sequel.
Scores:
Graphics 9/10. The environments are really well detailed. Only thing that could be better is some of the character models.
Sound and music 8/10. Good but not the same level of anticipation I got from the first one.
Gameplay 9/10
Story and writing 9/10
Overall 90%
Marginally better than the first. Feels less thrilling of an overall experience but better graphics and more polished gameplay make it a better game overall.
I couldn't get enough of dead space so I went right into 2 as soon as I finished 1. Here is the review while it's fresh.
It takes place years after the first one with you still playing Isaac Clarke. Need a spoiler here for the story round up because it gives away the ending of the first one:
Spoiler :
Again the story is awesome. The writing is really good with more than a couple twists. I also like that you're on a space station mining colony and there's actual people around this time, not just a huge empty ship. Isaac talks this time around, overall it's just more engaging. It is however much less scary. I think the reason why is you don't feel so alone and everything feels more open. Fighting solo on a ship full of dead people made for a lot of scary claustrophobia. The second game has a different feel. It's not better or worse just different. I did really enjoy the varied level environments though. The first one had great level design but this one has that as well as variety in scenery.
The gameplay is largely the same but better. Movement is smoother. Zero g has been totally redone so you fly around in it now instead of just jumping from platform to platform. It's less disorienting and better. There's more weapons and armor which is cool and the secondary fire modes have been redone to make more sense. There are more enemy types too.
Again it's short. Only about 9 hours. But again it's designed to be played through again on hard modes. I didn't try the hard core mode you unlock once beating the game but it said you only get three saves the whole game. That sounds brutal, losing a couple hours progress if you die.
Graphics are great, sound and music are fitting. Overall a great sequel.
Scores:
Graphics 9/10. The environments are really well detailed. Only thing that could be better is some of the character models.
Sound and music 8/10. Good but not the same level of anticipation I got from the first one.
Gameplay 9/10
Story and writing 9/10
Overall 90%
Marginally better than the first. Feels less thrilling of an overall experience but better graphics and more polished gameplay make it a better game overall.
civvver
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,855
Other than zero g and locator having a different button the controls are the same (on pc), it's the gameplay that's changed slightly. Like the weapon secondary fire is different, stasis recharges over time, a couple minor changes. So I'm not sure what control complaints there would be. I also went straight from 1 to 2 and had no issues. If anything gameplay is better in 2. I'll grab 3 as soon as it goes on sale again, but that could be a while. It's not likely to go on steam for a couple years since it's on origin and origin never discounts.
Omega124
Challenging Fate
civvver
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,855
Well almost a necro here, but I got this game on steam sale and just have to throw my 2c in. I'm really frustrated with Mafia 2 because there is so much potential in it that is simply wasted. It seems like the developers never had a clear vision for the game. Is it a story driven cinematic game like LA Noire, or an open world experience with plot points but meaningful stuff to do in between like Saint's Row/GTA and the one game I can't help but compare it to, The Godfather? The devs totally failed to deliver on either. They try to make it feel open by having you drive all over the place, yet there's nothing to do. In the godfather (which I played on wii) you muscle shops and the owners will pay you money weekly which you can use to buy weapon upgrades and safehouses to take over New York one section at a time. Eventually you get strong enough to take down rival families, and at the end of the game this is required. The story is spread out- after doing a mission there is actually 10-20 mins before the next one pops up so you are encouraged to go knock over some shops. The open world beckons to you and you end up participating. Not so in Mafia 2. The world is just a backdrop for dull driving sequences.
The story is decent but if that's all they wanted to focus on just don't put any gun shops and cars to steal in the world, just make it open for exploring sake like LA Noire. I just really don't understand the direction the devs wanted to take this. 5/10 for me because the game has no identity.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,926
Just finished Bioshock: Infinite and Dishonored over the weekend as part of my weekend blitz before classes start. I'll have real reviews up this week but the short of it is that I highly enjoyed both. Dishonored is the harder of the two on normal mode, but I have yet to try harder modes for either, including 1999 Mode. Both have interesting stories, interesting gameplay and mechanics that offer different playstyles in either game, and amazing visuals.
Bioshock is the more linear of the two, but has the stronger story and ending of the two.
Bioshock is the more linear of the two, but has the stronger story and ending of the two.
civvver
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,855
To The Moon
I bought this game on steam daily sale after I'd had a few drinks. Not my best purchase. I normally don't play games in this style. To The Moon is a retro, jrpg style indie game that is completely story driven, all three of which (retro, jrpg style, story driven) I usually stay away from, so I was surprised it engaged me so. Even though I couldn't put it down for the 3ish hours it takes to complete, I do feel it's extremely overrated and only ok. Here's my thoughts, some in spoilers.
First the easy part to critique, the gameplay. The gameplay sucks. You're viewing your characters in top down jrpg style like an old final fantasy game but you move by clicking the mouse and then you have to click items but the controls are finicky. You'll be clicking an item and sometimes your guy moves there, sometimes he won't. It just doesn't work right. Then a lot of it is repetitive and cumbersome when really you just want to get through to the next part of the story. The gameplay is a hindrance in most cases. Also it's not consistent at all. Some chapters you do a lot of clicking and searching then other ones are full out cutscenes with zero gameplay. I don't understand it.
Second the presentation. The graphics are fine for what it's supposed to be, though I don't get all nostalgic for old school 16 bit graphics. I think this game could've be way better with something new and fresh like hand drawn flash animation or cartoon stylized. But the devs made their choice and it's good within its limits. But my issues with the presentation are this story makes so much more sense as a book or a movie. The story tries to get emotional and make you feel empathy and invested in characters but being a video game it just can't develop. I really appreciate developers trying to push boundaries of gaming and I'm fascinated by the philosophical discussion of narratives and art form in video games, and this one tries very heroically but ultimately fails for me. If it was a book that had more time to flesh out relationships and personalities or a movie that had actors to impress those upon the viewer I think it would work. Reading 16 bit dialogue though leaves something lacking for me.
That's why I don't understand the reviews that say this game is a masterpiece, it's so evocative, it made me cry. I'm like really? So a couple 16 bit characters sharing 30 lines of typed dialogue is enough to establish an emotional connection for you? I think you need to get out into the real world more. The story is kind of like the movie inception where this company can change your memories the moment before you die so you can have the life you've always wanted in your mind and die happy. It follows these two scientist employees who are trying to help this old guy rewrite his memories to go to the moon, his dying wish.
I also had serious issues with the story once I thought about it though this needs to be spoilered.
The music I also had issues with. Not because it's bad, cus it's not, it's quite good. It's beautifully simplistic and I enjoyed it as background video game music. It fits the story and mood well. But reviews rave about it like it's a Beethoven symphony. It's not that great or talented, and the one with lyrics was borderline emo rocker ballad. I feel like this generation doesn't know what great music is anymore. The music fits the game well and is good, but it's still extremely overrated.
Overall overrated game experience. If the game moves you to tears I feel like you should have a serious discussion with yourself over why. Did you relate to a specific part of the game? Did some of what's in it happen to you in real life? Because that I can understand but otherwise I think those with that kind of response are overreaching because the want to feel a connection to something. There's far better, deeper game stories out there with better characters to feel connection to than these.
Graphics: 6/10. They're retro 16 bit style and not supposed to be great but I still rate them poor because I think so much more could've been done here.
Music: 8/10. It is good. Just not groundbreaking as claimed.
Gameplay: 1/10. Clunky. Just there so it can be called a game and not a digital novel/movie. Gets in the way of the story imo.
Story and writing: 6/10. Some of the dialogue is clever and the story is fine but the medium fails to tell it well enough for me and it is predictable. Nothing special.
Overall: 5/10
Still I'm glad I played it because it was an experience, even if not a great one.
I bought this game on steam daily sale after I'd had a few drinks. Not my best purchase. I normally don't play games in this style. To The Moon is a retro, jrpg style indie game that is completely story driven, all three of which (retro, jrpg style, story driven) I usually stay away from, so I was surprised it engaged me so. Even though I couldn't put it down for the 3ish hours it takes to complete, I do feel it's extremely overrated and only ok. Here's my thoughts, some in spoilers.
First the easy part to critique, the gameplay. The gameplay sucks. You're viewing your characters in top down jrpg style like an old final fantasy game but you move by clicking the mouse and then you have to click items but the controls are finicky. You'll be clicking an item and sometimes your guy moves there, sometimes he won't. It just doesn't work right. Then a lot of it is repetitive and cumbersome when really you just want to get through to the next part of the story. The gameplay is a hindrance in most cases. Also it's not consistent at all. Some chapters you do a lot of clicking and searching then other ones are full out cutscenes with zero gameplay. I don't understand it.
Second the presentation. The graphics are fine for what it's supposed to be, though I don't get all nostalgic for old school 16 bit graphics. I think this game could've be way better with something new and fresh like hand drawn flash animation or cartoon stylized. But the devs made their choice and it's good within its limits. But my issues with the presentation are this story makes so much more sense as a book or a movie. The story tries to get emotional and make you feel empathy and invested in characters but being a video game it just can't develop. I really appreciate developers trying to push boundaries of gaming and I'm fascinated by the philosophical discussion of narratives and art form in video games, and this one tries very heroically but ultimately fails for me. If it was a book that had more time to flesh out relationships and personalities or a movie that had actors to impress those upon the viewer I think it would work. Reading 16 bit dialogue though leaves something lacking for me.
That's why I don't understand the reviews that say this game is a masterpiece, it's so evocative, it made me cry. I'm like really? So a couple 16 bit characters sharing 30 lines of typed dialogue is enough to establish an emotional connection for you? I think you need to get out into the real world more. The story is kind of like the movie inception where this company can change your memories the moment before you die so you can have the life you've always wanted in your mind and die happy. It follows these two scientist employees who are trying to help this old guy rewrite his memories to go to the moon, his dying wish.
I also had serious issues with the story once I thought about it though this needs to be spoilered.
Spoiler :
The music I also had issues with. Not because it's bad, cus it's not, it's quite good. It's beautifully simplistic and I enjoyed it as background video game music. It fits the story and mood well. But reviews rave about it like it's a Beethoven symphony. It's not that great or talented, and the one with lyrics was borderline emo rocker ballad. I feel like this generation doesn't know what great music is anymore. The music fits the game well and is good, but it's still extremely overrated.
Overall overrated game experience. If the game moves you to tears I feel like you should have a serious discussion with yourself over why. Did you relate to a specific part of the game? Did some of what's in it happen to you in real life? Because that I can understand but otherwise I think those with that kind of response are overreaching because the want to feel a connection to something. There's far better, deeper game stories out there with better characters to feel connection to than these.
Graphics: 6/10. They're retro 16 bit style and not supposed to be great but I still rate them poor because I think so much more could've been done here.
Music: 8/10. It is good. Just not groundbreaking as claimed.
Gameplay: 1/10. Clunky. Just there so it can be called a game and not a digital novel/movie. Gets in the way of the story imo.
Story and writing: 6/10. Some of the dialogue is clever and the story is fine but the medium fails to tell it well enough for me and it is predictable. Nothing special.
Overall: 5/10
Still I'm glad I played it because it was an experience, even if not a great one.
civvver
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,855
Dead Space 3
Edit: I played some more and had to adjust the gameplay rating. The auto save system is just too broken. You can play for a couple hours and lose all progress and it's impossible to know when it's going to save. Dropped overall game to 70. Good game but some major mechanical flaws.
I'm not actually finished with the game yet so I may return to edit in some important changes. The game starts up with these guys recruiting Isaac to go find and rescue Ellie who was searching for more markers. The unitologists are at is once again releasing markers all over so someone has to shut them all down and that someone is you (as Isaac). Ellie thinks she's found the marker homeworld so you go there to try and stop it.
Overall story is strong once again. Not quite a cool as the second one but that's normal when you have a trilogy that needs an epic conclusion I feel, as you lose some of the individual story lines that make games really interesting for sake of the overall plot.
Graphics are outstanding. Definitely looks like a brand new game, which it almost is. My one complaint is being a console port it doesn't push pc hardware. There's no MSAA option, couple other things. It could be even prettier if it was optimized for pc.
Sound and music, again very good. Not as suspenseful as the first, but solid.
The only downside really is the gameplay. I think this game suffers from the trend of what I like to call gamerfication of video games. You know how like every new video game has to have hp stats and dps stats? What was cool about Dead Space 1 was how it had those but they were well hidden from the player when actually playing so it was more immersive. Now it feels like that's thrown out the window here. They completely revamped the weapon crafting and suits and it feels like a blatant push to sell dlc. Now you craft weapons from materials, you don't find them and buy them and upgrade. The system is way more complex and gamey. I liked the old way better where I just gathered power nodes and upgraded a weapon fully. Now there's multiple attachments, a whole bunch of parts, upgrade circuits, it's very complex and for no real reason. Except maybe to sell dlc cus you want all the new weapon types.
Also they did something really stupid and removed save locations. Now it all works off auto save. If you quit the game you start at your last auto save. You have to keep a close eye on the screen for the auto save icon to popup before quitting to know you won't have to redo the last 30 minutes you played. Sometimes finding a save station in the previous games was annoying but at least you knew when your game was saved and you could have multiple saves going to reload. Now you can't and you have no idea when the game is going to save.
Other than those to glaring issues the gameplay is largely the same as 2 and good. I have noticed enemies are much quicker. I get hit a lot more. This may be intended to have a more in your face experience. I don't mind it, it just feels different. I also like the removed ammo types so all weapons use the same and you're not collecting 6 or more types of ammo in your limited bag space. Good move.
Graphics 9.5/10. Simply awesome. Half a point off for not utilizing pc hardware fully.
Sound and music 8/10. Good but not the same level of anticipation I got from the first one.
Gameplay 6/10. I have to ding it for stupid save and weapon crafting systems.
Story and writing 8/10. Not as good imo as the 2nd one but kind of expected and still a great story.
Overall 70%
Overall an awesome game, just a few gameplay issues that keep it from being as great as the first two.
Edit: I played some more and had to adjust the gameplay rating. The auto save system is just too broken. You can play for a couple hours and lose all progress and it's impossible to know when it's going to save. Dropped overall game to 70. Good game but some major mechanical flaws.
I'm not actually finished with the game yet so I may return to edit in some important changes. The game starts up with these guys recruiting Isaac to go find and rescue Ellie who was searching for more markers. The unitologists are at is once again releasing markers all over so someone has to shut them all down and that someone is you (as Isaac). Ellie thinks she's found the marker homeworld so you go there to try and stop it.
Overall story is strong once again. Not quite a cool as the second one but that's normal when you have a trilogy that needs an epic conclusion I feel, as you lose some of the individual story lines that make games really interesting for sake of the overall plot.
Graphics are outstanding. Definitely looks like a brand new game, which it almost is. My one complaint is being a console port it doesn't push pc hardware. There's no MSAA option, couple other things. It could be even prettier if it was optimized for pc.
Sound and music, again very good. Not as suspenseful as the first, but solid.
The only downside really is the gameplay. I think this game suffers from the trend of what I like to call gamerfication of video games. You know how like every new video game has to have hp stats and dps stats? What was cool about Dead Space 1 was how it had those but they were well hidden from the player when actually playing so it was more immersive. Now it feels like that's thrown out the window here. They completely revamped the weapon crafting and suits and it feels like a blatant push to sell dlc. Now you craft weapons from materials, you don't find them and buy them and upgrade. The system is way more complex and gamey. I liked the old way better where I just gathered power nodes and upgraded a weapon fully. Now there's multiple attachments, a whole bunch of parts, upgrade circuits, it's very complex and for no real reason. Except maybe to sell dlc cus you want all the new weapon types.
Also they did something really stupid and removed save locations. Now it all works off auto save. If you quit the game you start at your last auto save. You have to keep a close eye on the screen for the auto save icon to popup before quitting to know you won't have to redo the last 30 minutes you played. Sometimes finding a save station in the previous games was annoying but at least you knew when your game was saved and you could have multiple saves going to reload. Now you can't and you have no idea when the game is going to save.
Other than those to glaring issues the gameplay is largely the same as 2 and good. I have noticed enemies are much quicker. I get hit a lot more. This may be intended to have a more in your face experience. I don't mind it, it just feels different. I also like the removed ammo types so all weapons use the same and you're not collecting 6 or more types of ammo in your limited bag space. Good move.
Graphics 9.5/10. Simply awesome. Half a point off for not utilizing pc hardware fully.
Sound and music 8/10. Good but not the same level of anticipation I got from the first one.
Gameplay 6/10. I have to ding it for stupid save and weapon crafting systems.
Story and writing 8/10. Not as good imo as the 2nd one but kind of expected and still a great story.
Overall 70%
Overall an awesome game, just a few gameplay issues that keep it from being as great as the first two.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
...
Then you probably shouldn't be posting a review.
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
I still appreciate the review. The disclaimer is fine.
civvver
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,855
I've played plenty of it to post the changes to the gameplay that I disagree with. Let others know before buying how it differs from dead space 2. The only unknown is maybe the story takes a big twist and blows my mind and needs to have that score updated but rating storylines is pretty subjective anyway.
WhiteRobber
Twinkle twinkle Wunderbar
I'd like to do a detailed review of a unique game I am playing for some time: Majesty; The Fantasy Kngdom Sim, and also it's expansion, Majesty: The Northern Expansion.
Both were amde by Cyberlore Interactive in 2001-2002.... then paradox bought off the company, created Majesty 2, which broke the original feel of the game, and created a few spin-offs: Mosnter Kingdom, Defenders of Ardania and Warlorck: Master of the Arcane in the same fantasy world.
The game follows a non-linear campaign: You can play mission in any order you want, as many times as you want. The game is ahrd to define as a genre. it's a RTS, but in the same time, it's a sim, while, if you think a little , it's actually a conglomeration of parallel RPGs. It is unique. No other game maanged to do this.
The player controlls few things: all units in game THINK FOR THEMSELVES. They play as heroes in a MMOPG, but they're not controlled by anyone. They buy better equipment, raid mosnter lairs, farm for gold and xp and even engage in teamwork against tougher mosnters, all on their own. The player's role? To decide which of the 16 hero classes to have, when to recruit each hero and what buildings to place where. The extensive backstory (there is an entire history of the fantasy land called Ardania, with a map) , the multitude of possibilities and the RNG-based battles of your heroes make it so you'll never play the exact same game twice. There will always be somethnig different. The choices are balanced. Having some heroes disallows you from having another hero class. For example, when choosing which temple to build, one side grants you healing spells, defensive heroes and a "turtling"-like strategy, choosing another awards you with more disposable support units and offensive-oriented heroes. Choosing the third side awards you a more challenging, but also more rewarding gameplay. Also, when choosing which non-human race to id you, the choice is difficult: will you get fast, expendable units that help you repair stuff around town (gnomes), or will you choose a slower, defensive route (dwarves) , or do you like to risk and have a chance tog et rich (elves)?.
And if you think you're not up to the challenge, use cheat codes! Yes, you ehard me. If the game is too easy, use cheats. No, seriously. Half of the cheats are to make specific waves of mosnters to appear. Would you like a Goblin raiding party to swarm at your heroes, or would you like to face a legion of Dragons and Golems? Or maybe a Minotaur Army? or maybe just a bunch of werewovles scattered through your kingdom?
Also, did I mention that each storyline quest is different? Their difficulty rating are shown in the selection screen, which is actually the map,
The graphcis are amazing for a 2001 game, rivaling those of Age of Empries 2, the music, composed by the famous Kevin Manthei, really absorbs you ( and, quoting him from a personal conversation I had with Kevin, " I doubt I'll ever make better medieval/fantasy music"), the voice acting, mostly done by George Ledoux , gives an impressive semi-realistic feel (until you hear him singing "What's up, Fatness?" on psychedelic music in the easter-egg) (you also heard George Ledoux in the latest EU4 trailers and in different commercials and games).
Overall, this is a must-have for both starters and hardcore gamers.
You NEED this game.
Also, it has multiplayer, and a HD version, Majesty Gold, released last year.
Seriously. It's the epitome of gaming experience.
Both were amde by Cyberlore Interactive in 2001-2002.... then paradox bought off the company, created Majesty 2, which broke the original feel of the game, and created a few spin-offs: Mosnter Kingdom, Defenders of Ardania and Warlorck: Master of the Arcane in the same fantasy world.
The game follows a non-linear campaign: You can play mission in any order you want, as many times as you want. The game is ahrd to define as a genre. it's a RTS, but in the same time, it's a sim, while, if you think a little , it's actually a conglomeration of parallel RPGs. It is unique. No other game maanged to do this.
The player controlls few things: all units in game THINK FOR THEMSELVES. They play as heroes in a MMOPG, but they're not controlled by anyone. They buy better equipment, raid mosnter lairs, farm for gold and xp and even engage in teamwork against tougher mosnters, all on their own. The player's role? To decide which of the 16 hero classes to have, when to recruit each hero and what buildings to place where. The extensive backstory (there is an entire history of the fantasy land called Ardania, with a map) , the multitude of possibilities and the RNG-based battles of your heroes make it so you'll never play the exact same game twice. There will always be somethnig different. The choices are balanced. Having some heroes disallows you from having another hero class. For example, when choosing which temple to build, one side grants you healing spells, defensive heroes and a "turtling"-like strategy, choosing another awards you with more disposable support units and offensive-oriented heroes. Choosing the third side awards you a more challenging, but also more rewarding gameplay. Also, when choosing which non-human race to id you, the choice is difficult: will you get fast, expendable units that help you repair stuff around town (gnomes), or will you choose a slower, defensive route (dwarves) , or do you like to risk and have a chance tog et rich (elves)?.
And if you think you're not up to the challenge, use cheat codes! Yes, you ehard me. If the game is too easy, use cheats. No, seriously. Half of the cheats are to make specific waves of mosnters to appear. Would you like a Goblin raiding party to swarm at your heroes, or would you like to face a legion of Dragons and Golems? Or maybe a Minotaur Army? or maybe just a bunch of werewovles scattered through your kingdom?
Also, did I mention that each storyline quest is different? Their difficulty rating are shown in the selection screen, which is actually the map,
The graphcis are amazing for a 2001 game, rivaling those of Age of Empries 2, the music, composed by the famous Kevin Manthei, really absorbs you ( and, quoting him from a personal conversation I had with Kevin, " I doubt I'll ever make better medieval/fantasy music"), the voice acting, mostly done by George Ledoux , gives an impressive semi-realistic feel (until you hear him singing "What's up, Fatness?" on psychedelic music in the easter-egg) (you also heard George Ledoux in the latest EU4 trailers and in different commercials and games).
Overall, this is a must-have for both starters and hardcore gamers.
You NEED this game.
Also, it has multiplayer, and a HD version, Majesty Gold, released last year.
Seriously. It's the epitome of gaming experience.
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
Okay, I'd intended to play this longer (a full campaign at least) before giving my verdict, and I may still change some of my opinions with further play and possibly trying a different faction, but I went through the "wow, this is terrible" phase to the "hey, this game's not all that bad after all" phase, and instead of coming to further appreciate it, my opinion is dropping once again. So, here it is - my review of Total War: Rome 2.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12761708&postcount=35
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12761708&postcount=35
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
What do you mean by "can't pronounce hoplite", because if they're pronouncing it [ʔop.li.te], that's how it should be pronounced.
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
Not according either to any pronunciation guide I've seen (e.g. http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hoplite), or the phonetic transliteration (which I can't paste here because the symbols aren't supported, but you can find here).
The accented "i" is the sound of the "i" in "pie" - the correct pronunciation is exactly as written in English, and as pronounced in Rome 1.
At least they get Triarii right in Rome 2...
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
Per wiktionary the correct pronunciation of "hoplites" in Koine Greek is [op.líː.tɛs]. In English the phonetic would be like op-LEE-tess (think "op" like in Gangnam Style); the i is pronounced twice as long as the other vowels, and hold the "tess" longer than you would if you were speaking English.
The correct pronunciation of Triarii is [tɾi.ɑː.ɾiː]. The pronunciation would be tree-AH-ree, with emphasis placed on the "a" and the a and double i being pronounced twice as long as the first i. The "r"s are flaps meaning they are akin to the spanish r.
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
Ah, I see where you're coming from. Yes, I understand from the same phonetic articles that the pronunciation would be approximately correct in Greek, but the Total War units aren't speaking in native languages, they're speaking in English (and, except for the Celtic factions - including the ones actually based in England - speaking in English accents. The Celts speak with some seemingly invented accent which sounds something like a cross between German and the Shogun 2 effort at Japanese). Hoplite is not being used as a native Greek word with Greek pronunciation - the word exists in English and has a defined English pronunciation. From that point of view the use of "hop-li-tays" is as incorrect as, say, the French pronunciation of "France" would be.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
