Where WE review our games

Pandora: First Contact?

With Civilization: Beyond Earth on the horizon, I decided to pick up a game that was recently released that calls Alpha Centauri a spiritual successor. Pandora: First Contact, is the second game by Proxy Studios, a very small independent company with only one other game other their belt according to their website. Conquest: Divide and Conquer, was released and 2010 and reads like a hex-based war game. The game barely got any press, and the only review for that game I could find was from Out of Eight, which gave the game 6/8 (75%). The reviewer said the following about that game.

The Good: Straightforward mechanics, favors using the correct counters over simply massing units, automated production, some interesting strategic tools, randomly generated maps, multiplatform
The Not So Good: Extremely tedious unit movement, limited unit variety, no offline play, no comprehensive tutorial or game documentation
What say you? A simple strategy game with a little room for improvement

Pandora: First Contact was released in 2013, and made it to Steam just before the 2014 Summer Sale, where it went only 10% deep.

What is going on?

Pandora: First Contact has the player taking charge of one of six factions and leading said faction to technological, military, and economic dominance of Pandora. There are six factions: Mercenary Guys, Social Network Cultists, Corporation, the Togra University, Eco Guys, and China. Reading the backstory for the six factions touches on one of my peeves with the game: The weak writing.

The Imperium were mercenaries back on Earth who ended up becoming the only military on the planet (apparently). The idea was that the West became increasingly casualty-averse, while the developing world and non-state actors continued growing in their military capabilities. The Imperium was the West's, and then the world's (except China) way of handling things. Battles and wars were decided by whoever paid the Imperium the best.

The Imperium made a deal with the Noxium Corporation and divided up space between the two of them. The Noxium Corporation, using Togra University-based technology, used the Imperium to solidify their hold. Then you have Terra Salvum, which got to space somehow (I forgot). China, aka the Solar Dynasty ran by a clone, also into space and boring.

Really, the only interesting faction is the Divine Ascendancy. The basic idea behind the DA and its matriarch is that it become a major religion in the 2040's, and kept members with a combination of blackmail and legitimate belief.

But that is the problem. The narrative of what is going on on Pandora just isn't that great. In-game, each AI leader does have its own way of doing things, but because the game's diplomatic system is so limited, there isn't many ways for these countries to express themselves.

The Good

The game has a lot going for it. The tech tree is randomized, and you have the option of making research as blind as you want. You can even set the tech tree so you can only see what techs you can research at that moment. There are a lot of techs, but each tech usually only unlocks a unit type, a building, an operation (more on later) and the matching building, equipment for your units, or a project. Projects are like National Wonders in Civilization, in that building them gives your faction nifty and useful bonuses.

The game's economy is also very similar to Civilization. Being hexed-based and having beakers, production, and food, it is almost easy to think the game is just Civilization V, but there are a few key differences. For starters, you pops are divided into Farmers, Miners, Workers, and Scientists. Farmers grow food, miners mine minerals, workers take minerals and turn them into production, and scientists produce science. All pops pay taxes, and you can set a tax rate to individual cities.

Food and minerals are pooled globally, which means you can specialize your cities to produce food, mine, etc. Other key city stats are pollution, morale, habitat, and growth. Morale is like happiness, but not global. Habitat is how well your city can "hold" people. Growth is how fast your population is growing.

The combat system does not use 1UPT. Instead, you can stack to your heart's content, but it is almost better to flank your enemy. Not only does flanking give hefty bonuses, but artillery units have ranged bombard, giving them an almost disgusting advantage versus stacks.

Speaking of which, when I say "artillery", I mean "a unit equipped with an artillery weapon". In my current game, I have two. I have a tank with an artillery piece equipped, and a sea unit with an artillery gun equipped. This is one of Pandora's biggest draws; The unit workshop.

For the most part, there are several types of units: Troopers, ATVs, Tanks, Air Units, Mechs, Ship unit. In the unit workshop, your choice of unit type determines the kind of strengths and weaknesses it has, as well as the kind of weapons it can equip.

Do you want an infantry unit with a powerful anti-biological attack? An infantry unit with a flamethrower is a good deal. Carrying our a guerrilla war in the hills on the cheap? Just give an infantry unit an anti-armor weapon and start producing it. Your choice of weapons and armor modifies the strength and bonuses of a unit, but also the costs.

A unit can also have a device. Devices range from "bonus to attacking" to "can capture alien life, but the unit is overall weaker."

Speaking of alien life, it sucks. If you screw up and set alien aggression too high, you will lose. A gigantic elephant-monster will rampage and destroy your cities. Gigantic birds will fly across the plains and eat your soldiers and tanks with impunity. Massive leviathans will roam your coasts, and given sea units can attack any unit on the coast, this could be problematic.

The real war is the war against alien life. At least early on. Imagine barbarian camps in Civilization V, only instead of camps, hives, and instead of barbarians, something that actually threatens your ability to survive the game. I lose more times to aliens than other factions more often than not, but this is also a problem as I will explain later.

In short, combat is fun. Combat feels weighty. And the game's UI makes it easy to understand what is going on across the board.

Another mechanic the game has is Operations. Operations range from using spy satellites to an operation that increases the level of units in the field at the cost of their health to orbital bombardment. Some operations are "built" and once used, are used. Others come from buildings, meaning the more op buildings you build, the more times you can order orbital bombardment or something. It is simple, very easy to use, but weighty in the effects it can have. Also, and this might just be me, but the AI is actually pretty competent at all this.

The AI, for example, will launch an orbital bombardment on a stack before attacking it, and it knows to do this against stacks since ODs are anti-stack. The AI is also pretty good at selecting a good combination of weapons, armor, and devices for units that maximizes the benefit while minimizing the costs. I started throwing a bunch of armors against one AI, and all of a sudden there are a lot of missile troops.

All this stuff works. Pretty well.

The Bad

Diplomacy is bad.

You know how in Civilization V you can make pretty detailed peace agreements, or at least customization ones? Yeah, no. That doesn't exist. Peace is asking for a peace treaty and, if asked for one, maybe demanding reparations (which you can't even set). Research agreements work just like trade agreements, only instead of credits it is beakers. Open borders...open borders.

There's not a lot to do. Worse yet, if you have a powerful enough military, most AIs will just spam you with gifts and praises. Praises are like Declaration of Friendships in Civilization V, only I don't actually care if I get them because at that point my army can level half the planet.

Or can it? Cities don't have health, but your units do not automatically enter hexes when they defeat a unit on that hex, sometimes leading to awful things like a counterattack against your units stuck on the plains outside a city.

The second problem is that things in Civilization like religion, civics, ideologies, and all that jazz isn't present. There does not appear to be a UN-type organization.

And the limited number of factions can actually lead to problems. In my current game, the Imperium has rampaged and annexed two entire factions, and I've been waging a war for the last hundred or so turns across two continents, now on my third. The war is fun, but my inability to do things like liberate cities and grant independence to bring factions back to the game isn't. I've always been one of those players that liked having tons and tons of NPCs on a map, and having only six because there is only six factions kinda sucks.

Final Verdict

Game is solid. The game's combat system is very enjoyable, and being able to set tax sliders for individual cities adds another level of micromanagement that isn't painful (and you can set a global rate anyway). The basic economic system of the game is solid as well. The lack of, I don't know, civilian aspects such as civics, ideologies, and a non-boring trade system is disappointing, and the game's diplomacy system is even worse.

Overall, I'd give this game a 7/10 (Good). There is an expansion due soon apparently. If you have cash just burning through your wallet, consider picking it up for 25% off on Steam if it comes up. Otherwise, 50%.

The game is currently $30 on Steam.
 
Might as well review some other games I completed recently.


Tomb Raider

Genre: Action/Adventure, Uncharted clone
Release: 2013
Price: $20, but I bought it for $5
Length: ~11 hours

Spoiler :
PROS
+ Platforming, and moving around in general, is very well done.
+ Combat is decent.
+ The save system is excellent. Checkpoints are very frequent, and the game constantly and unobtrusively auto-saves constantly.
+ The game looks and runs great.
+ Extremely polished.

CONS
- The story isn't necessarily bad, but it's not very good either. The villains are never really explained, they just want to kill you and your crew for some reason. Lara instantly goes from "omg I just killed someone" to mowing down dozens of dudes at a time. There's also dumb supernatural crap that made me sigh.
- Half the game is either a quick-time event, cutscene, or scripted event.
- The skill progression system is poorly designed. You have to take a bunch of useless skills in order to unlock the next tier of skills.
- Too much action, not enough adventure. The game's strongest point is when you're exploring and traversing the environment, yet it insists on throwing waves of enemies at you at every turn and pretending that it's Max Payne.
- The game takes itself very seriously and tries to be dark and gritty. While this isn't bad in and of itself, it's executed poorly. Lara performs superhuman feat after superhuman feat, and everyone on the island would have quickly died from disease, considering half of the island is covered in rotting dead bodies. It's just over-the-top and makes it hard for me to suspend my disbelief, especially when it presents itself in such a serious and gritty manner.

Verdict: 6/10. It's the epitome of the bland and uninspiring AAA game that has beautiful graphics and polished gameplay.

Everything you wrote in pros/cons is completely true and makes just about every point I would've made about the game. But I come to a completely different verdict somehow. The two main things that bothered me are actually just how many people are on this freakin island, there's like hundreds of bad guys all marooned, and secondly, all the bad guys are men who have been on this island for years. A ship wrecks off their coast with three hot women and their first instinct is to kill them. Yeah that's totally realistic lol. I'm not saying the game should've handled it differently, I mean it's a video game, but maybe a little more discussion and dialog before they just try to kill you. Seems a bit rash.

The way Lara's character progresses is very unbelievable, going from an innocent almost timid girl to a lethal killer in a snap, but it's also what makes the game incredibly fun. I am not finished with it, about 3/4ths done, but I don't find it bland or uninspiring at all, in fact I think it's quite fun to watch Lara progress and the story, while a bit out there, is engaging to me and very well acted. The production value is so good on this game, my current rating is 8.5/10. I'll write up a full review once I finished.
 
Didn't one of these hundreds try to rape her? A bit of a controversy trying to add that part.
 
It's not that blatant and only happens after they've tried to capture and kill Lara and during an escape attempt. I'm not saying it should even be in a video game or I would want that aspect in a video game, but the bad guys reaction to these people showing up just didn't seem very realistic. They just try to kill the outsider. No diplomacy whatsoever. It seems to be they would try to integrate the new people into the colony. But I guess they're all brainwashed fanatics according to the story.
 
Everything you wrote in pros/cons is completely true and makes just about every point I would've made about the game. But I come to a completely different verdict somehow. The two main things that bothered me are actually just how many people are on this freakin island, there's like hundreds of bad guys all marooned, and secondly, all the bad guys are men who have been on this island for years. A ship wrecks off their coast with three hot women and their first instinct is to kill them. Yeah that's totally realistic lol. I'm not saying the game should've handled it differently, I mean it's a video game, but maybe a little more discussion and dialog before they just try to kill you. Seems a bit rash.

The way Lara's character progresses is very unbelievable, going from an innocent almost timid girl to a lethal killer in a snap, but it's also what makes the game incredibly fun. I am not finished with it, about 3/4ths done, but I don't find it bland or uninspiring at all, in fact I think it's quite fun to watch Lara progress and the story, while a bit out there, is engaging to me and very well acted. The production value is so good on this game, my current rating is 8.5/10. I'll write up a full review once I finished.
I was probably a bit harsh on it, tbh, mostly because the story bugged me and my suspension of disbelief was ruined the whole time I was playing it. I think it's because I went into it after having read seemingly unanimous 9/10 praise, and it simply wasn't that good (but it was still good).

Keep in mind that I consider a 5 average, and I gave it a 6.
 
I finished it! Got sidetracked with some real life stuff so took a couple weeks but here's my take on tomb raider.

Tomb Raider

Tomb Raider is a 3rd person action game. It's a reboot of the Tomb Raider franchise and is basically the origin story of Lara Croft.

The story- Lara is looking for this hidden island where this sun queen is said to reside in ancient myth and could possible by the origin of Japanese people. Her ship and crew end up in a huge storm and crash on the island (I don't think these needs a spoiler cus it happens in first 2 mins of the game :crazyeye:). From there Lara has to learn to survive, first against the elements and then some wild animals and finally against hostile island natives. I don't want to give too much away but basically there's weird storms going on that crash all these planes and ships on the island and prevent everyone from leaving and Lara has to uncover what's going on while battling a bunch of cultist like survivors on the island.

The first thing I noticed about this game is it's beautiful. The world is highly detailed and looks great, the characters look great, lara's hard with tressFX on looks amazing, though it drops my fps from 60 to 30 so I turned it off. But graphics and overall production value this game gets an A+.

The gameplay is quite smooth, never buggy. You basically run around, jump, climb and shoot stuff. I played with an xbox pc controller and it worked great, every control was very natural. Not sure how regular pc controls are.

The world is somewhat open. There are distinct level areas which you travel through, some are large, others small, but you can explore them for artifacts and other items to gain xp and achievements and for fun and to give you more story background. I did not complete everything, I was at 81% when I finished, so there is quite a bit to find. The auto save system is one of the best out there, you will never be like what the heck after falling off a cliff or getting shot up. You'll get to try again right away. There's also camps on every level which allow you to instantly travel back to previous levels to explore. In all the gameplay is well done.

The story is probably the weakest part. I mean the survivors on the island aren't logical or explained that well. And there's TONS of them. Like you kill hundreds of people throughout the game. That many shipwrecked dudes survived and assimilated into this cult? It's a little unbelievable. Also the story is Lara's origin story and there's a lot about how she transforms from a green archaeologist into a hardened survivor (killer?). But it happens extremely fast. Like she finds a machine gun and all the sudden is taunting enemies and mowing them down. A scene ago she was hesitant to even shoot someone. She transforms quickly but it's part of the game I guess, you wouldn't want to spread this out over multiple games. The ending also left me a bit underwhelmed. It ended quite abruptly without a lot of explanation. But leading up to it, I enjoyed the story even if it moved fast.

The leveling system is adequate if not really deep. You pick abilities to improve your dmg or your exploring skills for example but it's not a tree and you get most of them by the end. Same with weapons, you salvage stuff to upgrade them too, but it's not a big deal if you do or don't, you'll kill enemies regardless.

In all I really enjoyed the game. Decent story, great, polished gameplay and appearance. Took me about 15 hours to finish it so it's got ok value if you get it on sale. I'm sticking with my 85/100 rating. If you like action type games like deadspace, batman arkham series, you should like this. If you want a really engaging rpg experience this will come up short.
 
Walking Dead: 400 days (DLC)

I figure I should give this a review before my season 2 one. This covers events that take place at the same time as season one and lets you in on a little backstory of a couple characters that pop up in season 2. However it is extremely short, you can do it in an hour. There's 5 characters you play, all a short scene about 10 mins long. It's not worth $5 at all, I got it on sale thankfully and you should too. But to be honest, you don't really even need it. Only one character has a real role in season 2, the others all have 10 second cameos and to top all that off you cannot even control their fates. It is random who shows up for those cameos and who doesn't. Just youtube 400 days and save yourself some money imo.

If I were rating this it'd be a 3/10 because your decisions really have zero impact on anything, and it's so short. It just feels like a dlc money grab, like hey let's whip up a few extra scenes that have nothing to do with anything and sell em.


Walking Dead Season 2

Well where to begin? First if you haven't played season 1, do it. It is amazing. I reviewed it already. I will try to hide all season 1 spoilers and won't spoil anything from s2.

Second thing you should know in case you didn't play s1 is this is not much of a game. It's more an interactive comic book and it actually calls itself an interactive story by... in the credits. Just so you know and aren't expecting like tomb raider type action. Cus you won't get it.

But the story is amazing so who cares!!! Yes, the writing is quite good. Along the way you get to make decisions like a choose your own adventure book that affect how the story plays out. In season 2 you play a little girl named clementine who is just trying to survive. That's all I can really say. You meet a ton of people along your journey through season 2 and it's quite interesting. But... it's not emotionally gripping the way season 1 was. You can tell the writers are trying really hard to make it so, by the way some of the conversations are worded and how some characters are introduced. I can't really explain why but I just wasn't feeling it the way I did in season 1. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed it, but at the ending of season 1 I was balling like a baby, while in season 2 I was like oh wait let me hit pause and get some more popcorn.

There are a few things I liked more about season 2. One there is a lot less action. I know that seems impossible if you played s1, but while s1 you had many areas you'd walk around and chat with people, like a few a chapter, in s2 there's like four I can remember all game and there's way less side conversations to be had and actions to do. It's almost all the interactive cut scenes which imo is totally fine. Let's just get on with the story. In season 1 some of the scenes you had to do stuff just annoyed me and detracted from the story. Now those are gone.

I never tried to do this in season 1, but in 2 you can skip to subchapters within chapters so you can go right to where a decision is made and change it. Nice feature. You also get to choose a new save slot when you do that so it's easy to try multiple stuff before moving on and not ruin your original game. Maybe season 1 does that too, IDK.

I don't think this is a s1 spoiler but to be safe:
Spoiler :

I'm pretty sure season 1 only had one ending, no matter what crazy path you took to get there. Season 2 has multiples and it's obvious. As soon as I finished I reloaded about 4 times to check them all out, then googled to make sure I hit them all, then watched a couple on youtube (faster than replaying them all). That I liked. It makes you feel like your decisions carry more weight and when the inevitable season 3 comes out I'm going to have a tough time deciding which save to start from!


In all, a little better choice system than season 1, more streamlined, but far less compelling imo. Though alltogether I'd say it was just as entertaining and about the same length, took me about 11 hours to finish it plus retry some stuff.

In all it's a solid 8/10. I recommend it.
 
It's been awhile, but for mostly the same reasons I liked the base game I guess. I enjoyed the little stories of different groups of people. I don't understand why "short" and "little impact on the sequel" merit a 3/10, I think that's ridiculously harsh. I mean, it's a cheap dlc, what did you expect?
 
For $5 base price I expected it to be longer, like the length of a full chapter of the normal game, at least twice as long.

To quote the description on steam:

"Echoes of the choices you made in Season 1 will carry over into '400 Days' and the choices you make in '400 Days' will resonate into Season 2."

I guess that's up to your own interpretation but the choices I made in 400 days barely registered in season 2.

I think I got it for under $2 on sale so I can't say I'm all that upset about it but I think 3/10 is accurate when there's really no reason to buy it at all, just youtube it.
 
How much of an impact did you think a $5 dlc was going to have on the sequel? You said:

one character has a real role in season 2, the others all have 10 second cameos

I don't know what more you were expecting. I'm still confused why some minor nitpicks bring the game down to awful range. You haven't even said anything about the gameplay or story itself, just complained about its length and effect on a different game.

there's really no reason to buy it at all, just youtube it.
I don't see why there's any more reason to youtube it compared to the base game. It's not like your choices make a huge difference in Season 1, either.

I just don't get why your score is so damn low. A game that's 3/10 is one that I consider garbage. From Maniacal's scale:

~3/10 = Good idea or one good mechanic but the rest of the game is AWFUL! Also if everything in the game is broken, but it has really good graphics.

I'm especially confused why you rag so much on 400 days when you seem to really like season 1? They're not that much different.
 
EVIL WITHIN
First half of the game is fantastic, second half is craptastic. It was like Resident evil 1 and 4 with new stealth elements, new enemies and great horror atmosphere. Then suddenly they must have run out of money / ideas and it became a crap puzzle shooter. Stupid mazes with random elements, too many idiot boss fights, way too much ammunition.

9/10 for the first half of the game
5/10 for the second half of the game

Some absolutely brilliant elements and many hours of survival horror along with some broken, frustrating dumb arcade like moments.
 
I'll post my review I made in the DA thread here as well.

This is a review for Dragon Age: Inquisition.

Better than Origins? No. Better than DA2? Yes, by far. I don't really consider this a real RPG. More of an action RPG at best. But really I just call it a fantasy action game. To me, a role playing game is more than a character going up numerically in levels. It's about actual role playing experience. And yes, I know there are many decisions (and even judgements of criminal cases) you make, so I guess marginally it's a rpg. I just wish I had more options for character development (warriors using bows, crossbows, dual wielding), mages using something other than a staff. And having only 8 hot keys really limits things. I go up in so many levels, I can select all the skills (relevant to my 2 handed style) anyways, so role playing in that aspect is limited as well. There were no tough decisions to make regarding allocations of my skills.

I did upgrade my hard drive (to a 10,000 rpm one) last week and my video card to a Geforce 970 4G gaming card last week. My computer other than that is over 5 years old, but I figure those things will extend the life of my computer 3 or 4 years. This video card can easily run this game at Ultra settings. Although I was a little disappointed the difference between Medium settings and ultra isn't that much. The game looks pretty damn good at medium settings.

Here's my review: (PC version)

Bugs/stability: A. Other than the gender bug at the beginning (patched already), I've only had 3 crashes to desktop (2 with my old video card, and 1 with my new video card). There is one other bug with your voice changing if you choose to customize
Spoiler :
Hawke
. I reloaded and chose default. It's kind of jarring having your voice change halfway through the game. I'm unsure if that's been patched yet. I didn't notice any other bugs, so they may have been too small for me to notice.

Gameplay: A+ There isn't much not to like. Other than some weird balance issues (dragon fight lasting 45 minutes, and final boss only around 5 minutes- not that I wanted another 45 minute fight), the combat is excellent. Exploration is very excellent as well, and a welcome relief in a Bioware game. It has better exploration than their MMO (The Old Republic) even. Dungeons are a little small though. I can only speak for 2handed warrior combat, as I controlled my character almost exclusively (except when he died). Smashing someone with a big sword or axe is satisfying. Animations are still a little quick, but not immersion breaking speed like Dragon Age 2. No auto attack, but I find I don't miss it. Maybe this might be more of an issue with rogue dagger build, I don't know. I was mostly using skills anyways.

Roleplaying: C- Not enough direct interaction with your followers. Lots of banter though, and I did enjoy that. Big decisions in the game only seemed to affect your party members influence, although I'm sure they affected the ending as well. The decision of what to do with a certain returning character seemed to have no effect, other than some of your party members getting very p'd off.

Story: A- The story didn't seem quite as focused as Dragon Age: Origins. I know people complain about the stereotypical evil creatures taking over the world plot in games, but I thought it worked well in Origins because it did have a backstory to it (the first blight, magisters attempting to enter the golden city etc.). The ending didn't seem as epic as Origins even though you are saving the world instead of only the nation of Fereldan. Better plot than DA2 though, by far.

Interface: B- Lack of naming of save games. Damn consoles. You are putting us back 20 years. We had the ability to name save games in the 90's dammit. What gives? Yes they have no keyboard, but I have seen typewriter interfaces pop up on my daughters PS3, you can enter text to find movies on Netflix and such. Controls seem a little clunky and not as precise as I'd like them. Thankfully no jumping puzzles like Star Wars: The Old Republic. Inventory is okay I suppose. Character attribute screens have a weird layout. Tactics mode has camera issues still, and no queue. Very little way to control your party member's tactics. Lack of more than 8 hot keys (I know this is more of a game balance issue and not interface, but whatever).

Voice Acting: A. No real complaints. They even have Jennifer Hale back (in an unexpected role). American accent male Inquisitor was a little flat at times.

Party NPC's: A. Not as good as Origins with regards to party member personalities and interaction. Origins had a ton of backstory you could discover. Personalities were better than DA2 by far. Lelianna and another returning female (no spoiler) NPC were good. Cassandra was excellent. Varric was good, but maybe not quite as good as DA2. Cole was annoying, but that's how the character was written. I almost never used him. Iron Bull was an excellent character, and maybe the best one of this game (although still no Sten, Sten was a more complex character). Josephine was my love interest, but the love story in this game wasn't as good as Origins (thankfully no underwear scenes though). Vivienne and Cullen were good as well. Sera was excellent although I didn't like her initially, she grew on me a little. Blackwell had an interesting story twist I didn't see coming.

graphics: A. Probably not top of the line compared to shooter games, but I never play shooters. So I was quite impressed actually. I had never seen waves from the ocean in an rpg before, or glistening of stone walls and rock from rain. And I got all this even on medium settings. I wouldn't try to run this game from onboard video, however. You need a graphics card.

sound: A-. Sound effects were nice. Changing the sound levels seemed to have no effect. Voices were hard to hear, but if I turned it up too much, sound effects such as explosions from rifts, and combat abilities were too loud. Even when I lowered the volume on those.

Music: B+ The music at the intro screen is nice. But honestly, I don't recall any other music hardly. Not as good as Origins. The exception being the bard songs she plays in your tavern. Those were a very nice touch, and I really enjoyed those. I missed finding 2 songs somewhere though.

exploration: A. No major complaints. I found exploration more fun than games such as Skyrim. Only downside is small dungeons, and lack of enough dungeons. There are invisible walls in some places, but they don't seem too intrusive. You can't go in the ocean, but didn't really bother me. My warrior wearing heavy plate armor shouldn't be in the ocean anyways.

Overall: A-. I liked this game more than Skyrim. I admit I've always enjoyed gameplay more in Bioware games than Bethesda games. The only thing Bethesda had over Bioware was open world exploration. This world still isn't truly open world, but Bioware fixed their lack of exploration they've had in their games (Baldur's Gate 1 was their last game that had decent exploration). I did not get bored of this game as I did with Skyrim (which can have repetitive combat).
 
Can you tell the difference with msaa on or off? I usually can't unless comparing screenshots side by side and I know my r9 270 won't handle msaa.

If you're willing to turn off msaa you probably could've gotten a gtx 760 and lasted 3-4 more years, cus wow, 970 is an expensive card! It's really hard to say where games are going to go now that ps4 and xbox one are driving higher performance cus it used to be much better to get a $200 card every 2-3 years than a $300+ one every 3-4, but with msaa and 1080p the $200 cards can't even hit 60 fps on inquisition.
 
Plants vs Zombies

Well I was going to review this new game I got which is a semi plants vs zombies ripoff but then I noticed no plants vs zombies review! So need to rectify that situation first.

Plants vs zombies is a tower defense type game but it has a very simple layout suitable for a tablet, even though it was made well before tablet gaming really took off. Kinda funny. I think it was actually a flash game originally, which would explain the style. What you get is a 2d chess board looking map on each level sized 5 tall by 9 wide. On these squares you can place plants and zombies attack your house from the right. Pretty simple right?

Well under that simplicity is a huge meaty chunk of strategic genius. The zombies that attack vary in speed and hp and dmg so you have to build a whole bunch of different plant types to defend your house. Some plants shoot super fast peas like machine guns, others shoot frozen peas to slow people, others shoot giant watermelons that explode and damage whole groups of zombies. Some are just barriers, but lookout cus there's pole vaulting and balloon flying zombies that go right over them. So you need even more types of plants to counter those. There's also resource collection. To make plants you obviously need sunlight. Sun drops from the sky and you have to click it but you can also make more by planting sunflowers.

That's the gameplay at it's very basic core. The main game has a ton of different levels though to mix things up. You start in your front yard daytime but later there's night levels with completely different plants, and then you have to defend your backyard with a pool full of water and later your roof where you can only plat in terrariums. Plus there are tons of mini games and challenges to complete to get gold to buy more upgrades and unlockables but it never felt grindy. There's even one where you drop down zombies and take on the attacking role. It's all a ton of fun. A super easy game to pick up and put down after 5 mins but also one you can play for hours. I have about 50 hours on mine.

It has fun zombie graphics and some cool music too. Overall I give it a 90/100. Really fun, really cheap and will last you a while even if it can be considered a casual game.


Now! On to my newest game....

Hunters of the Dead

Easiest way to describe this is mix plants vs zombies combat with rogue like random encounters. You play as the leader of a town who is out to find and kill Dracula but first you need to recruit a bunch of hunters and upgrade them to stand a chance. You do this on the main town map by clicking on buildings to explore. Each building gives you different stuff. Some have hunters in them, others have weapons, others are hospitals or training centers. It's not a mystery what you're clicking on cus they all have distinctive icons, but what is a mystery is lurking behind each building is a potential encounter with monsters.

At first the encounters start of quite easy but they get insanely hard really fast. You don't actually have to fight a single encounter but monsters that get through damage your base and eventually you lose when your base reaches zero hp. Eventually Dracula random shows up int hose battles too and any dmg you do to him carries over to your next encounter. So eventually you will kill him but he's super tough.

It's all put together quite well, it's a simple approach and presentation but with enough strategic elements to make it really interesting. For example, do you try to explore hospitals to heal your hurt hunters quicker or do you just try to recruit more? There's a lot of juggling priorities here. The issue though is it's really hard and it's meant to be. Each time you play you collect gold and it accumulates between all your games so if you end one game with 100g you start the next one with that 100g. Before the game even starts you can upgrade your starting group with extra hunters and weapons but it costs a lot. The upgrades are persistent though, so once bought all your games will have them. I played about 2 hours and still don't have enough for a maximum strength starting party and I'm not even sure if you still need some luck even with a party that strong. So it appears to be a bit grindy if you really want to win the game.

I'm not sure how long this game will keep me interested but it's pretty cool for a quick 5 mins here and there. It does have some mouse bugs though where it stops responding but it autosaves s you can restart and be fine. It is quite obviously a tablet game ported over but other than the bug it is easy to use with a mouse and works ok.

Overall I give it a 70/100. Good time waster game and I got it for around 75 cents.

Edit: I didn't realize the upgrades stayed forever. It's a lot less grindy than I though initially. Still haven't won but I've almost unlocked every upgrade after 3 hours. It's kind of cumulative, first games you won't get much gold but after buying a stronger party you go a lot further and can get thousands from one game.
 
Two Worlds: Epic Edition

Spoiler :


Won't let me enter the serial key, 1/10.

EDIT: It worked once I alt-tabbed back in. However, I didn't want to fill out a form with a bunch of personal info so I clicked "activate later".

Spoiler :


**** you too. 0.5/10.

tl;dr Two Worlds: Epic Edition - has trading cards, menu music isn't bad, runs, PITA to get into the actual game, 0.5/10.

EDIT: Game crashes when changing resolution, half the time it won't start up now.
 
SIMCITY (2013)


Surprisingly I didn't see a SimCity 2013 review here. I got the full game during the holidays and though I haven't touched it in a couple of weeks I feel I've played enough to offer my thoughts, so this review covers the complete version of SimCity that includes the Cities of Tomorrow expansion and various DLCs. Before I start, I must note that as I bought this game some time after the last DLC was released, I never directly experienced the issues users faced when the game first came out, ranging from server overload to poor performance. I can tell that the game was clear designed for multiplayer in mind, but I have only played on single player.

To begin with, SimCity 2013 is a very, very mixed bag, even now in its final state. I think - particularly for old-school SimCity fans - it boils down to this: if you come to the game understanding that it is not SimCity 5, that it has simplified things and has deep flaws, then maybe you won't be as disappointed. But you'll still be pretty disappointed, anyways.

At first, other than the fact that you can only choose between premade regions, things seemed similar enough to the SimCity games of old. I laid down roads; residential, commercial and industrial zones; a power plant; and so on. The tutorial did a decent enough job of explaining these concepts, as well as new concepts not seen in previous SimCity games. So I built my city, let it run, felt a bit satisfied with my efforts, thought hey, maybe its not that bad after all... and then I started noticing some things were off.

Firstly, the simulation that the devs were raving about is kind of wonky. Though the agent system was touted as being able to simulate large numbers of people, it's a farce. At least from what I saw and read elsewhere, citizens don't actually have jobs they go to day after day (as was the case with SC4 Rush Hour) - they just randomly pick the closest job they could find, with a different one every day. The agent system is also applied to utilities like water and electricity. For instance, electricity "agents" leave the power plant, and slowly go through random streets, powering any houses they come across. This sounds nice in theory, except the system results in some sections of your city falling apart because of the agents' horrid path finding skills. As another example, fire trucks often can't reach burning buildings on time, because they waste time either taking nonsensical routes or getting stuck in traffic. Someone elsewhere described the agent system as a clumsy variation of the walkers in the old Sierra city builders, and I have to agree - some of the old tricks in those games, such as having only one long winding road, work here too.

There are other issues too, besides the simulation. For example, you can't choose between low and high density zones anymore. Supposedly, the density of buildings depends somewhat on the size of the roads (ie skyscrapers will only grow along heavy-traffic avenues), but this still removes a lot of control out of your hands. Want to make a sleepy, rural town? Too bad, apartments are rising out of nowhere now and you can't do anything about it! Besides that, as I hinted at earlier, I could not design my own regions like in SC4's God mode - there's only so many premade regions in the game, and they get boring, fast. Not to mention they have awkward amounts of empty space between them, which makes them look weird in the region view. Regardless, a lot of other features had been removed from previous SimCities: subways, highways, a large selection of wonders and monuments, landscaping tools, and so on. Essentially, less features means less options for creativity.

But let's say that I didn't mind these problems too much. I thought, perhaps, things aren't too bad as long as I can mess around and build a cool looking city, kind of like playing with Legos. So I continue to build and build until... I can't build anything anymore, because the city sizes are tiny. It is really, really easy to fill up a city tile because they're just too damn small; I've heard players filling up their entire city within twenty minutes, and I filled up my first city in about an hour. It gets worse when your city's population and infrastructure grows to the point where you can support larger, useful buildings like universities or amusement parks. I basically had to demolish entire neighborhoods just to get some room.

The small city sizes were the straw that broke the camel's back. The game can be mildly amusing, even fun in a mindless sort of way, if it were not for the fact that after about an hour I had no more space to expand anything without sending in the bulldozers. Perhaps this was a way to force players to specialize their cities or rely on others in multiplayer - i.e. have one city for tourism, one city with upgraded utilities, one city for research and education, etc, - but it's frankly stupid, given that even the small cities in SC4 could function by themselves to an extent without obliterating entire suburbs. There's little room for creativity, already stifled by the number of removed features, and you can see why some people call this game SimTown.

It's a shame, really. There are a good amount of new ideas and improvements in the game, actually, that get overshadowed by the problems. The new feature I liked the most are the modular buildings. Let's say I have a high school, and it's getting crowded. I could just plop a new one... or I could add a gym or a new classroom building that increases student capacity. There's some flexibility as to where these modules can be placed, and some buildings, particularly the ones dealing with city specialization such as amusement parks or universities, have a wide variety of modules that all do different things. Of course, I can't build every module at once, as I'm limited either by funds or because of certain prerequisites, but it's overall a good system.

There are other new features expected of a modern city builder I can't complain much about - curved roads, the addition of mining, even the fact that I can schedule events at convention centers or theaters (which while unnecessary is fun, and an easy source of money). I also can't complain much about the graphics and aesthetics. The cartoony look grew on me, the UI is easy to use and understand, and even on my potato of a computer the game looks decent and acceptable (except the people, who for some reason looked like pixelated abominations from the 90s when zoomed in). The music, while not as inspiring or varied as SC4's motley mix, is nevertheless still pleasant, enjoyable, and high quality. And, lastly, if there's anything even the detractors and critics can't deny, it's that the trademark Maxis humor and charm is still present. I have to admit I grinned stupid when I saw a cafe, clicked on it, and heard some ambient jazzy sounding tune that seemed entirely appropriate for your average hipster cafe (it even had some tongue-in-cheek hipster-like name such as "Beans n' Leaves").

I'd also like to mention here, before I finish, that the game does have a true single player mode now that was added some time after release (ie you don't have to setup a multiplayer region with only yourself). There is also a sandbox mode in single player, where you have access to every building/upgrade at the start of the game, as well as various cheats to give you money, etc. I tried one city with the sandbox mode, and it's pretty boring and didn't help alleviate any of the game's issues - if anything, because I had more money, I filled up the map more quickly.

So, to conclude, the question, then, is whether the game is still worth it, after it has seen a number of fixes and improvements since release. My answer, ultimately, is: it depends. If you're looking for the next SimCity 4, look elsewhere. If you're alright with a cute but mediocre simulator, then perhaps this new SimCity might not be a bad bet if it's on sale for real cheap. Or, either way, just buy Cities: Skylines which is coming out really soon and looks basically like what SimCity 2013 should've been (not to mention its relatively cheap).

When I play these modern city-builders, I want to craft a glorious imperial capital, full of Asian skyscrapers glittering like stars in the skies. I want to create a quaint village in France or Nebraska, with miles and miles of open skies and endless crop fields. I want to build a superficially pretty, generic Japano-American suburbia where upper-middle class kids can run around in and have all their high school drama. Unfortunately, for all the good things in it - and yes, it does have a few good things - SimCity 2013 does not let me do any of these. You can't give a kid a handful of lego bricks and expect them to build something grand, and you can't give me SimCity 2013 and expect me to build the city of my dreams.

Sorry, folks, but there ain't no reticulating splines here. I give SimCity 2013 a 40%, but I feel that that might already be too generous given my usual media rating system (that 40% probably converts to a 70% for your average commercial reviewer). Pity, as SC4 gets a 125%, for it was beyond perfect, and served me loyally for more than a decade. I'd be surprised if this new one lasts me more than a few months.


Tl;dr: Play SimCity 4 or Cities: Skylines instead.
 
Why the HELL would you buy the game at all? No matter the price it isn't worth it and that was made pretty clear even before it released, let alone now.

I bought it real cheap on a sale and have played about 20 or so hours. Doesn't mean it's a good game or one I'd recommend, of course, but the fact that I've played several times more hours of it than other games that are objectively better should at least suggest that I didn't entirely dislike the experience. Think of it like eating really greasy fast food.
 
Top Bottom