Where WE review our games

Yeah, in the end, a place like this has more people worthy of my attention for game reviews than any given gaming web site. So this is a thread that's a bit like "I got a new game!", except maybe it's more like "I got a new game a few weeks ago and here is what I think of it!". Also, it seems "All Other Games" has been slow recently...

Not necessarily looking for really long and thorough reviews though. You can type in 10 pages if you want, but a few lines will still be useful to other gamers I'm sure. Try to give us a mark for the game. I suggest that we use a somewhat homogeneous grading system, and that we don't use the common commercial review system that seems to give every game by a major company at least 85%, seriously if EA releases a game that gets 79% on commercial websites, in reality it's probably is worse than Bebe's kids on SNES or the worst junk you've ever played. If you don't rate the game, you will get FTGCM = Failed to give clear mark.

It's perfectly fine to discuss the reviews, argue and whatnot. Just make sure your review posts are easy to spot.

It's also fine to review board games or card games or any games.

----

List of reviews:

Ace Combat Zero: The Belkan War: Dachs (70%)
Age of Empires II: Civ'ed (80%, 90% with expansion)
Age of Empires III: Civ'ed (75% vanilla, 95% War Chiefs, 50 % Asian Dynasties)
Age of Mythology DS: Civ'ed (46%)
Alan Wake: Captain2 (rent-only)
All Points Bulletin: GoodGame
Alpha Protocol: Zack (80%)
Anno 1404: Civ'ed (80%)
Anno 2070: Civ'ed (95%)
Assassin's Creed II: Rub'Rum (PC, 87%)
Assassin's Creed Brotherhood: SuperJay (75 %, xbox360)
Atom Zombie Smasher: Sonereal (80%)
Aurora: Blue Emu (85%)
Babel Rising: Sonereal (60%)
Bastion: Civvver (80%)
Batman: Arkham Asylum: Rub'Rum (PC, 71%), Polycrates (90%, PC)
Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Luckymoose (xbox360, 80%), Darth_Pugwash (80%), tycoonist (PS3, 90%)
Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing: Omega24 (0%)
Bionic Dues: civvver 75%
Borderlands: Radio_Noer (85%, PS3), GoodGame
Brink: SuperJay (80%, xbox360)
Bulletstorm: Polycrates (80%)
Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare: SamSniped (91%, PC)
Capsized: civvver (65%)
Civilization 5: Disgustipated (50%)
Clash of the Titans: Taniciusfox (73%)
Darkest Hour - A Hearts of Iron Game: Kan' Sharuminar
Darkspore: civvver (80%)
Dead Island: CommonKnowledge (45%, PC)
Deadlight: civvver (60%, PC)
Dead Space: Civver (85%, PC)
Dead Space 2: Civver (90%, PC)
Dead Space 3: civvver (80%, PC)
Dear Esther: Polycrates (FTGCM)
Defense Grid - The Awakening: civvver (75%)
Deus Ex: Mechaerik (80%), SS-18 ICMB (90%)
Deus Ex Human Revolution: Mechaerik (70%), Zack (70%)
Diablo III: Disgustipated (85%)
Dinner Date: CivCube (0%)
Divinity Original Sin: Disgustipated (FTGCM)
Dragon Age 2: Disgustipated (65%, PC)
Dragon Age Inquisition: Disgustipated (FTGCM, PC)
Dungeons and Dragons Daggerdale: SuperJay (45%, xbox360)
Dungeon Defenders: GoodGame
Dwarf Fortress: Sonereal (90%)
Earth Defense Forces 2017: Sonereal (85%)
Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall: Civ'ed (99%)
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion: nyk45 (95%)
Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim: Disgustipated (92%, PC)
Empire Earth III: electric926 (10%)
Europa Universalis III: remake20 (vanilla, 80%), Civ'ed (In Nomine 60%, Heir to the Throne 80%)
Evil Within: FriendlyFirer (FTGCM)
Eye Divine Cybermancy: Ajidica (FTGCM)
Fallout 3: GoodGame (10, PC /w all DLC)
Fallout New Vegas: Disgustipated (99%)+70% Dead Money DLC, 80% Honest Hearts DLC)
Far Cry 2: Phrossack (70%)
Faster Than Light FTL: civvver (90%)
Fifa 2013: SamSniped (75%, iPad)
Galactic Civilization II Ultimate Edition: SS-18 ICBM (100%)
Game Dev Tycoon: Nintz (75%, PC)
Half-Life 2: Harbringer (80%), Methos (FTGCM)
Hearts of Iron III: Civ'ed (90%)
Heroes of Might and Magic II: civvver (85%, includes HOMM1)
Hero Siege: civvver (70%, PC)
Hitman Absolution: Nintz (83%, PC)
Hunters of the Dead: civvver (70%)
Ironcast: Scarlet_King (70%)
Jade Empire: Till (80%)
L.A. Noire: civvver (80%, PC)
Limbo of the Lost: aelf (0%)
Lord of the Rings Third Age: serek000 (55%)
Luftrausers: Sonereal (50%)
Machinarium: CivCube (FTGCM)
Mafia II: carmen510 (70%), civvver (50%)
Magicka: GoodGame (90%)
Majesty; the Fantasy Kingdom Sim: GangnamPosse108 (FTGCM)
Mega Man 3: Omega124
Metro 2033: GVBN (mostly negative), Rub'Rum, (65%, PC)
Mirror's Edge: CivCube (75%, PC)
Monster Hunter Tri: DaemonDD (90%)
Mount and Blade: cardgame (90%, vanilla), Sonereal (93%, Warband expansion)
Nerhim At Fate's Edge: Civ'ed (90%)
Nuclear Dawn: Sonereal (85%)
Pandora First Contact: Scarlet King (70%)
Papers Please: civvver (75%)
Patrician IV: Civ'ed (80%)
Plants vs Zombies: civvver (90%)
Pokemon Heartgold: Harbring (80%)
Red Dead Redemption: Phrossack (90%)
Reus: GAGA_extrem (FTGCM)
Revenge of the Titans: civvver (68%)
Rock of Ages: Polycrates (70%, PC)
Sacred 2: Rub'Rum (84%)
Saints Row The Third: Sonereal (70%)
Saints Row IV: Sonereal (90%)
Scourge Project Episode 1 and 2: PrinceScamp (negative)
Secret World: CivCube (90%)
Section 8 Prejudice: Superjay (75%, xbox360)
Settlers 5: Civ'ed (50%)
Settlers Rise of an Empire: Civ'ed (83%)
Shadowrun Returns: mechaerik (78%)
Solar 2: Sonereal (90%)
Soldat: cardgame (100%)
SpaceChem: Polycrates (80%)
Space Pirates and Zombies: civvver (80%)
Spore: Sonereal (75%)
Shadow the Hedgehog 2005: Taniciusfox (46%)
Silent Hunter III: Civ'ed (80%)
SimCity 4 Deluxe: SS-18 ICBM (85%)
SimCity 2013: cybrxkhan (40%)
Skies of Arcadia: MajKira (Dreamcast, 100%), Sonereal (GameCube, 90%)
Sonic and the Black Knight: Taniciusfox (95%)
Sonic Colors: Taniciusfox (Wii, 90%)
Sonic the Hedgehog 2006: Taniciusfox (35%)
Sonic Unleashed 2008: Taniciusfox (83%)
Spec Ops The Line: Zack (FTGCM)
Star Wars The Old Republic (MMO): Disgustipated (FTGCM)
Terraria: remake20 (84%), GoodGame (89%)
Thirty Flights of Loving: CivCube (80%)
Tomb Raider (2013): Zack (60%), civvver (85%)
Tom Clancy's Endwar: Omega124 (xbox360, 80%)
Torchlight: Till (60%), Rub'Rum (68%)
Torchlight II: Nintz (90%)
To the Moon: Civvver (50%)
Total War: Rome II: PhilBowles (FTGCM)
Trenched: SuperJay (95%)
Tropico 3: Darth_pugwash (70%), Civ'ed (80%, Absolute Power expansion review)
Tropico 4: Sonereal (90%, all DLCs)
Two Worlds: Ajidica (60%, PC)
Two Worlds 2: Rubrum (63%, PC)
Unstoppable Gorg: civvver (70%)
Victoria 2: Civ'ed (80%)
Walking Dead 400 Days: civvver (30%)
Walking Dead Season 1: civvver (95%, PC)
Walking Dead Season 2: civvver (80%)
Warhammer 40K Space Marines: civvver (70%m PC)
Witcher 2: Disgustipated (92%), Loppan_Torkel (90%)
Witcher 3: Loppan Torkel (100%)
Wolf Among Us Season 1: Loppan Torkel (85%)
World of Tanks: GoodGame (80%)
Zoo Tycoon 2: Civ'ed (70%)

I propose a different system, one that actually makes use of the entire 0-10. Feel free to use a percentage out of 100 instead of 0-10.

Note: This is a recommended guideline, not an all-powerful law. You do NOT have to include a score! (I believe a score is unnecessary if the review is in depth enough but it isn't a big deal). They really are only a numerical summary of your review and don't say very much. But please DO include what you liked and/or disliked about the game in more than one or two sentences.

10/10 = Impossible. Except maybe Dwarf Fortress when it is finished.
~9/10 = Almost perfect! Best rating a game can realistically achieve.
~8/10 = Awesome, with a few flaws and/or things I'd like to see but the rest of the game makes up for it.
~7/10 = Good, only a few flaws which prevent it from being an 8.
~6/10 = Average, does nothing bad but nothing innovative/spectacular either.
~5/10 = Decent in some areas but flawed in others, its not a 6 or 7 but not a 4 either.
~4/10 = Would be decent except for major flaws flaws.
~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.
~1/10 = Absolute Crap..
~0/10 = Only for the worst games ever.

Pricing Guide:
8-10 = Worth full price.
5-7 = Might be worth full price if you are really into it, but otherwise wait for a pricedrop or sale.
4 = Not worth more than $5.
0-3 = DO NOT BUY.

EDIT: %s removed because % is a silly way of scoring games.

PrinceScamp said:

I propose a different system, one that actually makes use of the entire 100%/0-10.

Click to expand...

That's almost exactly what I was going to propose at first, but then I realized that no matter how much we hammer it in people's head, no one is going to stick to it and give 60% to a game they consider decent and most people won't give 50% or less to games that are anything other than absolute junk...

And then someone would come in without reading the OP and see "HOW CAN YOU GIVE THIS GAME ONLY 72% WAAAH " when we actually mean it's pretty damn good and we'd be re-explaining it all the time. This is why I decided to go with what we consider relatively good marks in school. As in, 60 is alright but it's not quite satisfying...

Anyway, just explaining my train of thought when I posted this. What do you guys think?

Metro 2033. Finished it twice. Shooting is weak, guns are uninteresting, stealth is broken, game is short, story is poorly explained, multiple endings equals two endings, atmosphere is good but not very dangerous, pacing is very good and graphics are great

SimonL said:

That's almost exactly what I was going to propose at first, but then I realized that no matter how much we hammer it in people's head, no one is going to stick to it and give 60% to a game they consider decent and most people won't give 50% or less to games that are anything other than absolute junk...

And then someone would come in without reading the OP and see "HOW CAN YOU GIVE THIS GAME ONLY 72% WAAAH " when we actually mean it's pretty damn good and we'd be re-explaining it all the time. This is why I decided to go with what we consider relatively good marks in school. As in, 60 is alright but it's not quite satisfying...

Anyway, just explaining my train of thought when I posted this. What do you guys think?

Click to expand...

We don't get many new people here, and I doubt it will be a problem. I edited it though and removed 2/10 from the guide (which I consider is merely a guideline and not all-powerful law).

PrinceScamp said:

We don't get many new people here, and I doubt it will be a problem. I edited it though and removed 2/10 from the guide (which I consider is merely a guideline and not all-powerful law).

Click to expand...

Alright, I'll refer to your post in the OP. I'll change my rating for Batman a bit. I'll put a list of reviews in the OP, for quick reference, in the hope that this thread gathers some interest. So I'll cut and paste my Batman review here instead, to free up the OP.

---

I got Batman Arkham Asylum a few weeks ago. It had great reviews everywhere. While I'm not a fan of things like God of War and third person 3D beat-em-up, I was attracted to the stealth element. I still waited for it to go down to half price before I got it, because, you know, I had to get it, considering the reviews.

I'd say I was a bit disappointed, I'm not done yet, but yeah... Maybe I fooled myself into believing the world of Batman would suddenly become appealing to me (it never really has appealed to me much), but it failed to get to me again. Also, the fact that most of the time I realize I'm in this detective mode that puts everything in puke green was kind of stupid. This "detective mode" changes the colours and lets you see through walls, see the enemies, see the things you can interact with, see secret passages; I didn't know why I should turn it off. The fighting was fun but in the end, we're at this point where I feel I'm just watching batman do cool moves while I left click and sometimes right click.

The game is kind of linear too, despite being somewhat open world. It tries to make you come back with your new equipment, a bit like in Metroid, to find stuff, but that stuff isn't very useful except for story-telling, which I didn't care for, as I explained.

I liked Assassin's Creed 1 better (haven't tried 2 yet), even though the combat was even more ridiculous, the setting and story appealed to me much more, and the world they had created was jaw-dropping. Too bad it was empty...

I do want to praise the setting of Arkham Asylum to some level though. It just wasn't my thing... But the character models in the game are especially cool, with Batman's suit tearing apart as the game progresses. The level design was decent, if constricted or mushy in parts.

And while the combat itself could get a little boring, setting up traps and using your equipment was kind of cool... When I had the patience to do it. Dangling down from these gargoyles was a bit overpowered.

Aaaaanyway.

Batman Arkham Asylum gets 71% from me.

Endwar, your my favorite Non-AC game on the Xbox 360. The fact you sold horribly is a shock and a disgrace to any true RTS or Tom Clancy game. Anyways, let's begin.

The main part of the game is the MP. However, my parents are cheap, and won't pay for Xbox Live. Therefore, you're S.O.L. there. Yep, I'm only reviewing the SINGLE player part.

There are three main factions in the game. America, Russia, and Europe, (Yes, Europe. You heard me right). Firstly, Saudi Arabia and Iran nuke each other to oblivion, including their oil fields. This makes Russia the largest Oil exporter. Apparently, America and the EU developed a worldwide SDI afterwards, and fired all their nukes at each other, only to see them get exploded in the air. The nuclear age is over. Russia, however, says "Screw you guys, I'm keeping my nukes". That is important later on. America is almost done building a space station that will allow the new JSF (All the branches of the military combined. Yes, this game is made by Tom Clancy. Yes, that's the same Tom Clancy who wrote Red Storm Rising, the book that literally went out of its way to be historically accurate ATL) to deploy anywhere in the earth in 90 minutes or less. It also contains a giant missile launcher, which is online. The Euros unite together to create the United States Of Europe. However, scince even the local village idiot knows that the EU, who called for the vote in the first place, is most certainly NOT a federal republic like America or Germany (The only two real Federal Republics in the world),they're just called the European Federation, a much more suiting name. During this, The Balkans (except for Greece and Romania, who are already part of the EU) are completely destroyed in a war to annex them. A famine destroys SE Asia and South America, as well. Thus, a terrorist group, called the "Forgotten Army" who uses 2000s technology (The game takes place in 2020) is formed.

Now, to the actual plot itself. At first, The Forgotten try to liberate Croatia, but fail epically. They then attack JFK Space Center, but the JSF pushes them back. Finally, they attack Russian Oil supplies in Caucasus, in probably the most easiest mission in FREAKING. RTS. HISTORY., where all you have to do is move your Infantry to cover and wait 20 minutes as they blow up all the Forgotten that approach them while The Calvary reinforcements arrive, even though your Jesus infantry were doing fine on their own. Needless to say, they fail both assaults. Both Russia and America blame EF, scince it's only 4 years old. America invades Copenhagen, using peacekeeping as an excuse. The invasion works, but an EF counter attack pulls 'em out. Russia is a little less bold, however, as they disguise their units as part of the Forgotten and invade Finland, annexing it.

Thus is where you step in. You can choose to be America, Russia, or Europe. Since I've only played the tutorial levels once, and I chose America. All I know is that the EF does a sneak attack at Washington, which is repelled. You know how I said Caucasus was the easiest RTS mission ever? Well, Washington is the HARDEST! Dear god, I almost returned the game due to how much Euro cheats at that mission.

What's after that? Well, it's WWIII, with all three nations attacking each other (I don't know why America and Russia are fighting each other. They were called Allies in earlier cutscenes in their invasion of Europe. Maybe if I picked Russia, it would have explained it).

At WWIII, you are automatically the nation who chose for your final level in the Tutorial. You can now pick which Battalion you can command. Your choice is important, as each one has different bonuses and different amount of unit types allowed. Me? I chose the 13th Airborne. They had the Gunships and Infantry, units I relied on a lot during the Tut.

A review after that stage is impossible, scince the war goes differently every time. I can say that Russia is for the players who want straightforward attacks and firepower. Their units deal out the most damage, but they are the slowest units, as well. Infantry is kinda lame, but the Tanks are literally the best. Euro is for those who want Technology. In an outright fight, they are usually the first to die. They have both the worst firepower and worst armour. However, their units can have better passive abilities at cheaper costs. They, according to the in-game description, have the best Urban Warfare options, due to their infantry being trained by Rainbow Six standards. I say Bull****. America does. Their units have adaptivity. They can survive longer, and be used in more situations than any other faction. Infantry can go stealth, due to their Ghost training, and their Artillery are the best. Basically, they're the middle ground of the two factions.

As for other countries? Well, the official book mentions that Canada is still around as a neutral country that supports America, while no battle map features Switzerland, and scince they aren't in the EU, nor mentioned in the Forgotten's speech of places ruined by war, it's safe to assume they're still around as a neutral country.

Skirmish mode allows you to play on any map, in any mission type, with any countries. Real fun to mess around with. Two vs. Two is supported, and, if there lacks a second player, an AI may be used in place.

8/10 for sure. While the game is awesome, anyone can tell it only is the North Atlantic front. Events from other parts of the world can be heard, but not about actual warfare. But Tom outright said there were other fronts to be covered in other games. However, due to the lackluster sales, I'm most likely never going to see it, like ever.

Plus, as you can hint from my commentary in the plot, some of the game's plot doesn't make much sense. I can't see in the NEAR (remember, it's only 2020!) future a complete unification of Europe, or even everything but Switzerland and the Balkans, for that matter. Nor can I see America's military branches becoming one, even if just for gameplay reasons (Which most likely was the reason why, as Spetsnaz is the main military branch of Russia). Also, strangely, unless if I play as 'em, Russia dies out very quickly, barely holding on by the end. It's usually America vs. Europe for actual dominice.

However, the game play is extremely awesome. There is absolutely nothing bad about it. Instead of a bird's eye view, you view the battlefield like your own units! It's very awesome but heartbreaking to see the carnage your units cause to the landscape. Don't like it? Deploy a Command Velicle, press the Back button, and you now have a tactical map, like most RTSes. However, you only have it as long it it's alive.

If a second one is made, I want backwards compatibility. I foremost want an Asian front, between China, Japan, Russia, Australia, and, what the heck, Indonesia. It would make sense, and be awesome. Russia would be untouched from the first game, while new armies for the new nations. For backwards compatibility, you could the North Atlantic and the Asian front going on at the same time. Playing as Russia, the most popular nation of the fans, would especially be fun, as you have to deal with two fronts. After that? Well, I can only think of an African front. South America and SE Asia has a famine, Middle East is in fallout, and Central America would be boring. Mexico would win everytime.

Thus is Endwar. A game that, if you look past the fact it's a Tom Clancy game that doesn't really have historical accuracy, it's simply the greatest RTS ever. Will an Asian front ever come out? I don't think so. Any front? Again, not likely. But it does do a great job tying in all of Tom's previous series together.

Plus, it would be hard to find a game with such awesome credits music. (They NEED to put it on iTunes, like, now)

Battlefield Bad Company 2 - for Xbox 360


This game is probably one of the better purchases I have made in regards to replayability in a long time. I will review both parts of the game in my opinion and give them both separate reviews. The destructible environments are one of the best reasons to at least try this game out, it's certainly amazing.


Single Player - The singleplayer campaign in Bad Company 2 is exactly what you would expect from a game with a multiplayer focus, it's short and doesn't really care about realism in the least. With that said the main plot picks up shortly after the end of Bad Company 1 and really adds more to the characters. Some of the jokes are really funny and the dialog is well thought out but the mission structure could be better. The game has a hard time transitioning from fast paced to slow and steady missions and it really throws you off while playing through. One minute you're sneaking around and then instantly you're in a major fire fight with vehicles, etc. And this type of flip, while sounding appealing and keeping you on your toes, is highly annoying and really breaks the atmosphere of the levels. Overall I would say the singleplayer is far too easy, even on the hardest difficulty, and the achievements are simple for the obvious reasons that they couldn't think of enough for the multiplayer section. The graphics and textures are amazing and when compared to games like Modern Warfare 2 are in league of their own. The large scale of some of the levels really make the game beautiful but thats not enough to save the screwy carny ride of a campaign this turned out to be. I give the singleplayer a 65% out of 100%.


Multiplayer - this is obviously the majority focus of the game, as it is with all Battlefield games. With four game modes, Conquest, Rush, Squad Rush and Squad Deathmatch there is plenty to do, though the majority of the players stick to Conquest and Rush modes. Conquest is the basic capture and hold of bases like every Battlefield game has ever had with life tickets on both sides that tick down from kills and from whoever has the majority of the flags. Rush mode is a game where the map starts off small, with a set objective for the Attackers team and for the Defenders. It's obvious that the goal is to defend or attack the MCOM stations in the bases. Destroying them with charges or with other explosive means, including bringing down buildings. Attackers have a set number of lives, which is 75 and defenders have infinite lives. The attackers lives are reset to 75 whenever a base is taken and then the entire map expands to give a new base and the battle moves on. Rush is definitely the best mode in the game. The other two modes are pretty self explanatory.

There are four classes in the game and dozens and dozens of weapons, gadgets and perks. The four classes are Assault, Engineer, Medic and Recon and all have their specific attributes. Assault is the typical run and gun guy, with grenade launchers and ammo resupply kits. Engineer is the mechanic and heavy weapons guy, he can repair vehicles and bring them down with RPG's and other rocket launchers. Medic is the medic obviously and Recon is the sniper class. Weapons, gadgets and perks are unlocked at levels which are gained through experience points gained from actual combat score and from awards and pins you earn for your feats in the round. You can only get points for a specific class by killing or doing objectives as that class. For examples if you are a Recon guy you can't unlock more recon gear by using a tank or a turret. Those gain you vehicle experience. So it's fairly balanced out and no exploits for experience can be used. With all the various kits you can use everyone on the battlefield can be running a different equipment set from everyone else and it keeps it interesting.

The maps in multiplayer are my only major concern with it. While there aren't many, and they are split between conquest and rush, yes some maps are exclusive to certain modes which is ridiculous, the maps are fun in their own ways. In these games only about a third of the maps are truly fun while the rest are sluggish and poorly thought out. Nelson Harbor which is the only night time map in the game is perhaps the most annoying map to play as both sides. While other maps seem like they are completely one sided. I hope DICE releases some truly amazing DLC with great new maps before too long.

All in all I have to say the multiplayer bit of the game is the best and is truly worth the full price of the game. I give the multiplayer section 90% out of 100%.

With a combined overall score of 80% out of 100%, but I would suggest trying the game and perhaps purchasing it. If not now certainly when the price comes down.

Mount & Blade, 9/10 could be better but still Awesomesauce

And that's all I will say for now.

-----

Soldat, a free shooter, 10/10! http://soldat.pl/en/

This 2d side-scrolling (both ways) shooter game puts you in control of 14 different guns, 10 primary and 4 secondary, all balanced against each other but also unique, as well as grenades, and lets you maneuver your soldat across hundreds of maps, in over 5 game modes: classic Capture the Flag, Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, Hold The Flag and Rambo Match, against hundreds of other players at almost any time of the day. You can also hone your skills in single-player against bots on five difficulty settings before heading out to the slaughter. The maps feature a lot of unique terrain, including icy patches where you can't stand still to aim your sniper rifle, the 2d equivalent of urban combat, with lots of narrow passages, and some hiding spots to camp and lots of dips and rises. Your soldat has many maneuvers at his command to get out of a tight spot, as well as a jetpack. The amount of fuel for your jetpack varies from map to map for balance. Nothing is quite as exhilarating as a bunch of your buddies and you charging headlong into the enemy base, guns blazing, taking the flag and making a harrowing trip back to base, hounded the whole way from long-range fire - and surviving to make the capture with three seconds remaining to win the round.

-----

and now I was going to rate a game like 6 or below, and write a decently sized review on it explaining why, but I forgot which one...

Torchlight

+ Diablo 2 gameplay with sensible changes/addition to remove tedious chores
+ Pretty graphics

- Only single player
- There isn't anything terribly innovative about the gameplay
- Story and dialouges are completely forgettable
- Enemies are just as stupid as they were in 199x
- No fancy cinematics

I bought it for 5EUR, and got a very polished hack and slash RPG with no bells and whistles. It's probably not worth much more than that, however.

6/10 (using Scampi's rating system)

Till said:

Torchlight

+ Diablo 2 gameplay with sensible changes/addition to remove tedious chores
+ Pretty graphics

- Only single player
- There isn't anything terribly innovative about the gameplay
- Story and dialouges are completely forgettable
- Enemies are just as stupid as they were in 199x
- No fancy cinematics

I bought it for 5EUR, and got a very polished hack and slash RPG with no bells and whistles. It's probably not worth much more than that, however.

6/10 (using Scampi's rating system)

Click to expand...

I got it too some months ago, sometimes I go back to it (like today!) and play my character. I've about 10-20 hours played I guess. Not sure I'll be playing much. I have Sacred 2, which is a much better time waster in my opinion. Actually I shall write a Sacred 2 review at some point, but I'll just say that your review of Torchlight is pretty dead on and I'll add my own Torchlight gets 68%, for me. The story and dialogue is indeed pure nothing. The character classes are kind of boring too. It seems any skill I would have picked would have done the same; destroy a lot of bad guys quickly. Diablo-clones can be mindless but... This is going too far. I play it when I have like 20 minutes to kill while waiting for something. Maybe it can get better by trying different characters and builds... But I don't see it happening anytime soon for me. Like I said, the skills seem kind of redundant.

EU3 (vanilla): 8/10

In short: It's an additively fun game, but a slew of bugs.

In long: In EU3 you take the part of any nation in the world from 1453 (you can start earlier with the expansion which I'm gonna get) to some time in the 1800s. You wage war, colonize the new world, conduct diplomat actions, and build a huge empire). One of the fun things about this is you get to create history. Unlike civ where you usually don't play on a world map, you do play on a world map, and correct history has happened until that time, when you then get to change it. It is fun taking a country nobody has ever heard of and making it the biggest super power in the world. You feel so powerful! It is one of the easier-to-learn games of Paradox, so it's not bad for new players. The tutorials leave a lot out, so your best reading the huge manual. The managing system works well, and it keeps you from consistently expanding through war and colonization. It is challenging for hard core players, and easy enough for relaxed noobs. It's kind of hard to fall away from it, because every game you play is different. Challenging players will always have different situations, because of the like 200+ people you can play as, and being able to start during the whole time-frame, not just 1453. But sadly in vanilla, there is a huge amount of bugs, and most of them can ruin your game. I have heard though with all expansions fully patched the bugs go down, but with vanilla, very bad. The two biggest ones I've seen so far (one happening twice) include, not getting anymore diplomats and loosing 2000 gold a month after selling a province. Considering it's hard to put money into science and get 20 GPM is something only more challenging player can accomplish, -2000 is A LOT OF MONEY. All in all

It's an additively fun game, but a slew of bugs.

Click to expand...

Ups:
Fun diplo
Waging war is exciting
Balancing everything between expansion science, ect is challenging
Changing history adds a fun element and makes you feel powerful
Good for hard-core and laid back players

Downs:
Tons of bugs (in vanilla)
Can be frustrating if you don't know what your doing
Can be frustrating when you do know what your doing

Yeah, I find that often message boards are more useful than reviews for getting to know about the good and bad points of a game, though reviews can be useful as well.

Anyway, I wrote a review of Tropico 3 a while ago and put it on this blog:

http://flaktrack.blogspot.com/



There's a couple things from last year about Modern Warfare 2 and Left 4 Dead 2 there as well. I'll probably add a review of Bad Company 2 soon.

Darth_Pugwash said:

Anyway, I wrote a review of Tropico 3 a while ago and put it on this blog:

http://flaktrack.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

Hey thanks for the review. I bought Tropico 3 when it was 13$ a couple of months ago and haven't played it much yet. Only 3 hours or so. I found that I failed miserably. Your review will maybe guide me better in my next attempt. It's indeed a balancing act but I had no idea how to go about balancing and I kept barely making any money, I didn't know how fast I should build stuff up.

Actually, I find that this is a common question in most strategy games, god games, or whatever you want to call these empire or city management games. At first, I have no idea how quickly I'm supposed to do things or expand, and how expansion negatively affects me if I do it too quickly.

Can I just, as an observer for the time being (though I will post myself) ask that there be a minimum standard to reviews?
I don't want to see

"Thsi game rocks, its fun, lots of blood etc. 85%". I want real reviews from people who are independent.

nonconformist said:

Can I just, as an observer for the time being (though I will post myself) ask that there be a minimum standard to reviews?
I don't want to see

"Thsi game rocks, its fun, lots of blood etc. 85%". I want real reviews from people who are independent.

Click to expand...

I just don't want people to feel like they have to write a novel. But a basic set of good points and bad points and things that appealed to the player is not asking for too much I think.

Also, we should remind people not to hand out the really high marks lightly. That probably also means that you should resist the temptation to just come here to flaunt your favorite game.

I don't mean it has to be spectacularly long, but it would be nice jsut to have peoples' general impressions on the game, any issues, and any innovations etc.

Seconded, something more than #/10 ITS TEH 1337!eleven.

PrinceScamp said:

10/10 = Impossible. Except maybe Dwarf Fortress when it is finished.

Click to expand...

I'd put Half Life 2 here, of course its the only gave that I've played through six times. so yeah.

Oh yeah, also, I'm guessing people could theoretically request reviews here, if they are thinking of eventually getting a specific game. Maybe some people have played it and have a few words about it, but then, maybe not. It's worth a try!