Where WE review our games

Sir, ask and ye shall receive. :)

BRINK by Splash Damage (published by Bethesda)

BRINK is a multiplayer-focused FPS game that emphasizes the use of teamwork to complete objectives. Players face off in 8v8 matches with one side attacking and one defending; the attackers attempt to complete various objectives (hacking terminals, blowing doors, escorting vehicles, etc) while the defending team attempts to prevent them from doing so. You can play cooperative with friends against AI bots, solo with AI teammates and enemies, or in open multiplayer with other humans on both teams. (I'm going to assume you guys know the basics beyond this and won't describe what the entire game is, but if you have questions feel free to ask.)

You can create up to 10 characters and level each of them up to 20. The classes aren't permanent choices - any character can be any class at any point, and can even switch from the Security to the Resistance so you can group up with friends on either team. You would likely specialize your characters as they level up, though; you might invest most of your points in Soldier skills, but you could still use a Command Post to make a quick switch to Engineer for the purposes of blowtorching that safe open to pass the current objective. The "SMART" movement system is a bit quirky at first and takes some getting used to, but by day 2 I was running, jumping, climbing, and generally monkeying around the environment without a problem.

The game itself is a ton of fun with a group of friends, but it isn't a perfect game. The graphics and animations could use some polish, the UI can get a bit overcrowded, and the intelligence of your AI bot teammates is sorely lacking much of the time, making solo play a last resort. Some of the class abilities aren't balanced well and will likely be adjusted via patches, and some of the weapon choices don't offer much variety. It might suffer from a lack of content in the long-term ( it releases with 16 missions total, IIRC, so repeating those could get boring after a while) but hopefully Splash Damage will release additional maps for the game.

Technical stuff - I'm playing on an Xbox 360 and I have not encountered any freezes, dropped games, graphical glitches (screen tearing or egregious texture pop-in) or other bugs so far. I did have one moment last night where the lag spiked for our team for a second, but that was a single instance in several hours of play. So far, no significant problems to report on this front.

Overall, I give it a 8.0 / 10 rating. The production values may be lacking in some areas, but the gameplay provides a ton of fun when playing with a group of friends.

Check it out if: You can play MP with friends and enjoy working as part of a team, you like character customization, you loathe auto-aim, you enjoy playing different team roles (medic, soldier, engineer, or special ops), and you enjoyed games like Team Fortress 2 or Left 4 Dead.

Pass this by if: You can only play solo, you find manual aim difficult or frustrating, you get distracted by quirky animations, or you aren't willing to take a chance on games that don't adhere to the tried-and-true shooter formula.
 
cool thread, I just now noticed it. Since no one else has reviewed this game, I shall. It came out last year, and many of you have already read reviews or made a decision whether to play or not to play it, but I shall review anyways.

Fallout: New Vegas

My review may seemed biased because this is one of my favorite games of all time. But I actually went into the game fairly neutral. I wasn't that big a fan of Fallout 3, and felt the story lacking in that one. So I wasn't sure what to expect here. I also may be biased because I spent most of my life in the Las Vegas area, although I'm not sure how that influences the game that much.

There was a time I preferred Bioware games that had less open ended gameplay and world, because they offered more story. But strangely, after playing Fallout: New Vegas, I find it difficult to go back to those games. The lack of freedom is annoying. Freedom is one word I'd use to describe New Vegas. Now you can't kill everything, there are 3 characters you can't kill, but you can kill everyone else. But you can align with or go against a variety of different factions in this game and explore a good sized map. The game offers many more choices than Fallout 3 (or Fallout 2 or 1 for that matter), and you have quite amount of freedom to finish the game your own way. The map isn't the biggest map using that engine, but it's big enough to get a pretty good scale of the area, and offer quite a bit of exploration.

Many people say I shouldn't like this game because it's by a company that released games that aren't finished all the way or have bugs. But I felt the game was very well finished and polished without many bugs (I got hit by a save bug once, but not too bad if you use multiple save slots). A lot of people are Fallout 3 Bethesda fanboys and trash this game. I honestly don't see what Fallout 3 has over New Vegas. So while I do read the criticism, I can't seem to relate to it. I honestly think this is a near perfect game. Not that it couldn't use improvements. It could use more dialogue for sure, and maybe a little bit bigger map (I would have liked to see another good sized town like Pahrump in there)

One slight dislike of the game is it does drag on a little near the end. After a while you get tired of doing sidequests and just want to finish it so you can see what the endings will be. And if you are a completionist like me, and try to do every sidequest you will spend a while at max level which I dislike. But I have this problem with every game because of my need to do every sidequest (Baldur's gate 1 and 2 take a long time to finish as with Dragon Age) It could possibly need a little more humor, and maybe a few more dark elements as well, but overall it had a good balance.

I love the voice acting. I think this is really what makes the game special for me. The variety of southern accents was very interesting and funny. I still find myself saying Bronchitis in the same southern accent as Festus. Festus I found hilarious. I still find myself wanting to get a dress for Veronica as well. And while Boone seems pretty cold at first, he eventually spills his story. I felt good giving him the ending where he ended up in New Vegas where he met his wife. These are characters and companions I actually cared about. Raul is another companion I cared about. Try to tell me you didn't feel something when you heard what happened to his family and sister. It's a mark of a good game that gives you characters that you actually care about. And with 4 different main ways of winning, what is there not to like? I found myself actually getting teary eyed from the endings of the game. This should be the gold standard of rpg's, and I hope future rpg's rise to this level.

score: 99%
 
And since no one else has reviewed it, I'll review the other recent (by recent I mean games released within a year) game I have played. Civilization 5. This may seem redundant as we are on a Civilization site, and we've all seen both the criticism and fanboyism, but I'll write a short review anyways.

Civilization 5

For the record, I'm a huge fan of Civ2, Civ3, and Civ4. Civ4 I felt was lacking in some areas upon release, but overall it felt complete, and more importantly it felt balanced and fun. Something I cannot say for Civ5. Civ5's main flaws are balance and fun. There also seems to be a lack of tension and challenge in the game that isn't corrected easily by raising difficulty level. The game has serious problems with the time scale, and gets quite boring fast after the initial expansion. Units, technologies, buildings, civilizations, absolutely nothing seems balanced in this game.

Some of the concepts are cool, and I do give props for trying to keep the genre fresh. But the actual implementation is a disaster in almost every regard. And yes that includes 1upt. I don't see what's so great about it. It makes absolutely no sense to me, clogs up the game, and most importantly it makes moving your units around a chore. I play a game to have fun. But I actually find myself dreading positioning and moving around my units in preparation for a war. It's more fun to play a peaceful game without war. My only victory (actually two since I reloaded) was diplomatic and cultural. I can't bring myself to go into any prolonged war. The tediousness of it is staggering.

I'm trying not to be a hater here, I'm trying to come up with good things, but I'm struggling. It does look pretty, I'll give you that. Except for rivers which are possibly the most ugly thing I've ever seen in a modern PC game. The sound is decent, but the music isn't nearly as good as Civ2, Civ3, or Civ4.

edit: for the record I have played the game on release and with the Feb. patch, I haven't played any patches since then, or mods.

summary: I can't recommend this game for anyone.
Score: 25%
 
Thanks SuperJay, seems like I may like it based on what you said, still, I'll probably wait for the inevitable price drop that will probably come sooner than expected judging from the general feedback of the populace.

In other news, Civ 5 is not so hot indeed (although 25% jeez). But I generally like warfare in it more than in previous games. Strange how disappointment comes from different areas for different people. For me it was really just how bland my nation and the territory felt and how little city placement or terrain exploitation strategy seemed to matter.
 
In other news, Civ 5 is not so hot indeed (although 25% jeez). But I generally like warfare in it more than in previous games. Strange how disappointment comes from different areas for different people. For me it was really just how bland my nation and the territory felt and how little city placement or terrain exploitation strategy seemed to matter.

For me it was this+border pops, and how you don't get your borders nice and connected as easily as you could in civ4. On top of that, I really just didn't like the feel of civ5. It's hard to explain, but I couldn't even make it to the Medieval era in the game.
 
Although I should mention my ratings system isn't exactly like PC gamer rating system where everything is above 70%. I basically mean that Civ5 is 1/4 as good as the best game of it's genre (for me that would be Civ4). Although if you look at it like a school score, that would be an F, which isn't how I intended it. The game is playable, and may be fun at some point in the future. If the game was unplayable I'd give it less than 10% or more likely a 0.
 
Although I should mention my ratings system isn't exactly like PC gamer rating system where everything is above 70%. I basically mean that Civ5 is 1/4 as good as the best game of it's genre (for me that would be Civ4). Although if you look at it like a school score, that would be an F, which isn't how I intended it. The game is playable, and may be fun at some point in the future. If the game was unplayable I'd give it less than 10% or more likely a 0.

We have a recommended rating guideline on post 2
 
We have a recommended rating guideline on post 2

Recommended rating guide is stupid. Sorry PrinceScamp, you are awesome but if you have to rate a game on percentages it gets really stupid. Did that poor AI decision in the third level really make you lower your final score? By how much? A percent? Five percent? Ridiculous. Say it's good or not good. Don't bring 'percentage enjoyed' into it.

/Rant over.
 
Presented the way it is, it's no worse than rating for essays in university. Did it get the basic points across, was it generally fun, and was it playable. If you get THAT influenced by that poor AI decision that happened on the third level, well um, we don't need your review, mehe.
 
Recommended rating guide is stupid. Sorry PrinceScamp, you are awesome but if you have to rate a game on percentages it gets really stupid. Did that poor AI decision in the third level really make you lower your final score? By how much? A percent? Five percent? Ridiculous. Say it's good or not good. Don't bring 'percentage enjoyed' into it.

/Rant over.

Hence why its a guide, and I put the /10 afterwards since I figured people would still use % whether its good or not. I agree % is a poor rating symbol to use (like any number), but I personally do not view it as out of a certain checklist. If you're review is good enough, you won't need a rating (although you can still write one, but it wouldn't be necessary). Really I just didn't want to see the same stupid 6-10/10 rating system used by many "major" reviewers.
 
Maybe 25% is a little low, but it's silly to get revisionist. And who knows, I may feel differently about the game with mods or patches in the future. I'll stick with 25% for now.

As for a 0% game, I will give you my review of Big Rigs: off the road racing. It sucks. score: 0%

Okay, I haven't actually played that game, I'm basing the review off a video I watched.
 
Maybe 25% is a little low, but it's silly to get revisionist. And who knows, I may feel differently about the game with mods or patches in the future. I'll stick with 25% for now.
I don't really care what rating you gave it, I didn't find your Civ5 review to be very informative or helpful in making a decision. It was really rather vague and brief, a bit more depth would be nice next time :) There's no need to get so defensive either.

As for a 0% game, I will give you my review of Big Rigs: off the road racing. It sucks. score: 0%

Okay, I haven't actually played that game, I'm basing the review off a video I watched.
Then why did you even post about it?
 
Big Rigs: Off The Road Racing is the Plan 9 From Outer Space of video games.

Except it's not so bad it's good, it's just so, so, sooooo bad.
 
Thanks SuperJay, seems like I may like it based on what you said, still, I'll probably wait for the inevitable price drop that will probably come sooner than expected judging from the general feedback of the populace.

No problem. Yeah, I would recommend waiting for the price to drop if you're on the fence. I had a large group of friends who were anticipating this game for over a year, so I got it on Day 1 (which I don't usually do) so I could play with them right away. That's probably a big factor in my enjoyment of the game. Playing solo is alright (but the bots can be annoying), and playing online with strangers is decent but not ideal. Having 8 guys all in a party laughing like mad at the epic moments of awesomeness is what makes this game so much fun for me.

This is the kind of game that somebody can find reasons to dislike if they really want to, but if you accept the game on its own terms it's a blast.
 
I'm sorry my Civ5 review was so vague, I wish I could pinpoint exactly what's wrong with it. I really want it to be fun. Because I miss playing Civ games. I kept restarting games in civ5 with different starting positions to find something that I thought may be fun. I played for a while, and then got bored. I don't know what else to say.

There have been several critiques by Sulla and others blaming 1upt for everything, but I'm not sure I agree completely with their analysis. But they do have several good points. And many people find the game fun. So perhaps there is nothing wrong with the game, and there is something wrong with me, and other old school Civ players who just can't adapt to change. So that's why you have to take mine, and everyone's review of games in this thread with a grain of salt. Not everyone is alike.
 
Might as well start a new thread if you're going to critique other peoples' reviews in detail, since the object is to post one's own review.
 
I'm sorry my Civ5 review was so vague, I wish I could pinpoint exactly what's wrong with it. I really want it to be fun. Because I miss playing Civ games. I kept restarting games in civ5 with different starting positions to find something that I thought may be fun. I played for a while, and then got bored. I don't know what else to say.

There have been several critiques by Sulla and others blaming 1upt for everything, but I'm not sure I agree completely with their analysis. But they do have several good points. And many people find the game fun. So perhaps there is nothing wrong with the game, and there is something wrong with me, and other old school Civ players who just can't adapt to change. So that's why you have to take mine, and everyone's review of games in this thread with a grain of salt. Not everyone is alike.

Nah believe me, there IS something wrong with the game. Haven't played Civ in a while but whenever I am tempted to go back, I always see Civ 4 in my head more than Civ 5. A shame because I like how it looks, the sleek feel of the interface (just talking aesthetics here), and as I said I do like 1upt... But it feels pretty empty.

Might as well start a new thread if you're going to critique other peoples' reviews in detail, since the object is to post one's own review.

True.
 
Mafia II by 2K Czech

Mafia II is a third-person "open world" game about... well, the Mafia. Firstly, the story is of decent quality. Without spoiling anything, the story was engaging to me, but it does contain many stereotypical plot points that you would see in pretty much any gangster/mafia movie. I really enjoyed the characters and was genuinely concerned for several of them, which was why the ending was a downer for me.

The cutscenes were great and the graphics were amazing for the most part, although there were several glitches I noticed (like one where a curtain in the clothing store stretched over 10x its length onto the wall, although none of them were gamebreaking). The soundtrack was also really good; 2K chose an excellent selection of songs from the '40s and '50s and the radio station commentary was decent, although it certainly wouldn't beat the humor of GTA's radio stations.

Combat was smooth, although it did fall into the rut of move from cover to cover and pop out to shoot. Nonetheless, I enjoyed Tommy-gunning down cops and other gang members. The stealth sections were okay, but nothing that hasn't been done before. I felt that the wanted system was well done, with the police taking note of your license plates or your clothing if you committed a crime. The police didn't chase after me if I zoomed past a red light or if my car was covered in blood and shot up, but I consider that a good design decision since it would be far more annoying if they did stop you for that.

Now, one of my complaints are the obvious padding of the game with lengthy driving sections. It took me about 16-18 hours to finish the game on normal difficulty, but I swear that driving around accounted for at least 1/4 to a third of that time. It feels like you drive pointlessly from one cutscene to another, then do some task, do some more driving, kill some guys, and then do even more driving. After a while, it just gets annoying, especially since speeding too fast will cause you to get pulled over. However, I must admit that the radio music made driving much more bearable, and I think that driving allowed me to appreciate the great atmosphere of the city that 2K created.

Another major complaint from me is the linearity of the game. Even though it was technically an "open world" game, I felt like I was forced to do the story missions. The problem is that exploration entails driving (since walking/running is a pain when trying to arrive in places), but you probably need to drive halfway across the city just to do the mission in the Chapter you're in anyways. The lengthy driving sequences just killed my interest in deviating from the storyline.

Overall, I would give this game an 7/10. Its a good Mafia-style game with the problem of padding and linearity. If 2K had made it so that the game was more open (ie, if I could choose when the missions took place, instead of Chapters occurring one after another) or if the driving sections were cut in half, I would've probably rated it higher. I haven't tried out the Story DLC yet.

Oh, and I should mention that Playboy magazine posters are collectibles in this game. Really good quality material, if I do say so myself.
 
Top Bottom