Where WE review our games

[Sonereal]

I disagree but then again, this is about opinion.

 

[Rub'Rum]

I know of few gaming websites or magazines that give less than 60% (except for games like Big Rigs: Over the road racing). Most don't have the balls to give a major release less than 60%. But I have given a game here less than 60%, although I was flamed for it.

You mean less than 75% hehe...

 

[Maniacal]

I agree with that number range. Basically anything above a 60 is passable (in American school systems), which means a game is passable, and does have some play value. Anything less than a 60 should be considered failing, and not recommended for playing. I know of few gaming websites or magazines that give less than 60% (except for games like Big Rigs: Over the road racing). Most don't have the balls to give a major release less than 60%. But I have given a game here less than 60%, although I was flamed for it.

The grading system is fine for school but shouldn't be used for rating products or games. 60% is completely average and can still be tonnes of fun but it just doesn't do anything amazing OR it has some great features and is fun but also has enough flaws that outweigh what it makes good and results in it being about average. (I'd stick, say, CoD around there).

EDIT: Fixed a typo.

 

[KaiserElectric]

The grading system is fine for school but shouldn't be used for rating products or games. 50% is completely average and can still be tonnes of fun but it just doesn't do anything amazing OR it has some great features and is fun but also has enough flaws that outweigh what it makes good and results in it being about average. (I'd stick, say, CoD around there).

Nah, The Ship is more like a 50. CoD isn't that bad.

 

[Maniacal]

The Ship at least tried something new and wasn't another yearly release to an already boring and somewhat unfinished series of games (there are still issues with Black Ops that I keep hearing people complain about that they are never going to fix), I'd give The Ship a 7 or 8 if I had it to review (I don't know why but I forgot to buy it during the sales, so I only played the hell out of it during a free weekend a while ago). CoD is around a 6 (I rechecked my first post in this thread where I made 6 average ). Being average doesn't make it a bad game, and even bad games can still be fun.

 

[Polycrates]

I just finished Rock of Ages. It's the new game from the crazy Chilean guys who made the excellently bizarre Zeno Clash. This game, I hate to say it, is a real case of missed potential.

The core of the game is that you roll a giant smiling boulder around and smash stuff in crazy obstacle courses; said courses being themed on a trip through European art history as interpreted by Terry Gilliam.
Both these elements are excellent.

The artistic style works fantastically well. Levels are grouped into a bunch of themes, each based on art from a given artistic period (Ancient Greek, Middle Ages, Italian Renaissance, etc). 2D sprites are cut straight from paintings and shoved into a 3D world, and it works in a crazy sort of way. In between the levels are 2D cutout-based introductions to the level's main foe, that are extremely well-done and could really be straight out of Monty Python.

The rock itself has really excellent physics, with a satisfying feeling of weight and momentum that crushes things just right, and even the jump (it's never quite explained why a smiling boulder can jump, but just go with it) feels very intuitive. Smashing stuff gives you gold but may slow you down or take you out of your way; meanwhile there's various obstacles of varying danger to avoid, and a ticking clock adding a sense of franticness to the whole proceedings. In a way, the obstacle racing thing has a Marble Madness meets Mario Kart sort of feel to it, and it works.

BUT the main gamemode just doesn't quite work with this. The main game is a vs mode, with your boulder competing with an enemy boulder to race through the course and smash the opponent's castle gates. Each run through the course takes a small proportion of the gate's health depending on the health and speed of the boulder. In between your runs you spend the gold made from smashing stuff on building defensive structures on your opponent's section of track to try and hinder them. So you can put up a bunch of towers that they have to smash through or go around, catapults that shoot their rock to do damage, and a number of traps to either keep them funneled in a killzone or blow them off the side of the course.
It's a fine idea, and it certainly makes it interesting to have an increasingly-difficult obstacle course each time you go through the course. It gives a strategic purpose to smashing stuff - do you go and smash everything for the money to build a *ahem* rock-solid defence, or just race through for the fastest time? Do you try and smash their catapults etc so you don't have to face them next time?
But the execution leaves a lot to be desired. For starters, it's really really hard for your rock to get destroyed (and falling off the track just slows you down ala Mario Kart but strangely does no damage), and the damage done to the enemy castle seems to vary very little by how damaged your rock is. So it almost always boils down to just a race to be the first to get three rocks down to the end.
Second, building your own defences is quite clunky. You only really get a really short time between runs to build defensive structures, which doesn't let you plan your traps properly. Also, the enemy rock is generally rolling along simultaneously - you can see from its perspective in a window in the corner, but that means you're not focusing on where you're going. So you really can't see which of your defences are actually working and which are total duds.
You can see what they were going for, and a fair bit of it comes down to balancing (and I've seen the developers saying they're planning on tweaking it in response to complaints). But honestly, I think they've really tried to cram too much in at once. Instead of a simultaneous mode, I can't help thinking it would have worked much better if the two "players" took turns on attack and defence (with some sort of gold bonus or something to reward speed), giving both aspects of the game a chance to breathe.

I also feel like they've missed the opportunity to have some levels that aren't straight-out "vs", other than the couple of pretty ordinary boss fights that it throws in. I'd have loved to have seen some levels that were e.g. timed survival - survive through a tough obstacle course but with a timer to make it interesting, or smash x number of things without dying or running out of time, etc. There's a time-trial mode, but most of the obstacles aren't there, and there's a big disincentive to smash stuff - it's not terribly great. The game's core model could be expanded to a bunch of different game modes that would really make things more fun, and it's a shame the game stuck to its one core mode. I get the impression there's a couple of extra multiplayer modes, dunno if they're any good.

The whole singleplayer game is also remarkably short. Steam reckons it took me 3 hours to finish, which isn't long, even for a cheap indie.
Overall, it's a cool experience that actually tries to do something a bit different, the core mechanic is fun, and its aesthetic is completely amazing. It's also cheap enough to be worth giving a try, but I can't help but wish they'd extended the concept a bit further. 7/10

 

[Maniacal]

Damn you, I was going to review this, but I have more or less the same thoughts on the game! They really priced it correctly and I hope they can fix up the tower defense part of it because it is a pretty cool game, I loved Zeno Clash and I want them to continue making wacky and unique games.

 

[Polycrates]

Damn you, I was going to review this, but I have more or less the same thoughts on the game! They really priced it correctly and I hope they can fix up the tower defense part of it because it is a pretty cool game, I loved Zeno Clash and I want them to continue making wacky and unique games.

Sorry!
Yeah as much as I think having the rolling and the defence simultaneous was a fundamental mistake, I reckon they could go half way to making the tower defence side work just by something as simple as scaling door damage more with rock health and adding damage for falling off the track. Maybe making defences more powerful but more expensive too or something so each one is more important, I don't know. So yeah I'm also hopeful it could be much improved with some fairly basic balance tweaks, which I gather is something they're working on.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Good review

 

[Civ'ed]

After my Review of the Settlers 6, I have come to discuss the slightly worse SETTLERS V.

Gameplay:
GEEZ, UBISOFT!!!!!!!!! WHAT IS GODDAMN WRONG WITH YOU! All missions are quite hard (the singleplayer "Dartmor" map is hard, you're dead before you've started), the campaign is boring (NO, EFFING PRIEST. BUILD THOSE GODDAMNED TURRETS YOURSELF, I WON'T HAVE MY SERFS DO IT FOR YOU.) But otherwise quite enjoyable. Also I have no care for the heroes AT ALL (soo unrealistic), although Erec + Pilgirm with Salim support is quite fun.
4/10.

Graphics:
This game doesn't look as friendly as it's successor. in fact, it's atmosphere is darker, much darker, and the campaign explains that. But quite beautiful.
9/10.

Sound:
This game has music! and you'll never hear it because of the dickhead advisor!
2/10 for never hearing a thing.

Overall 5/10.

 

[Maniacal]

I am sorry Civ'ed, but that tells me absolutely nothing about the Settlers V, it doesn't even barely summarize the game like your other posts did. If you are going to post a review of a game, please actually review it!

Sorry!
Yeah as much as I think having the rolling and the defence simultaneous was a fundamental mistake, I reckon they could go half way to making the tower defence side work just by something as simple as scaling door damage more with rock health and adding damage for falling off the track. Maybe making defences more powerful but more expensive too or something so each one is more important, I don't know. So yeah I'm also hopeful it could be much improved with some fairly basic balance tweaks, which I gather is something they're working on.

I really like your suggestion of having the rocks roll in different turns and yes the damage the rock takes should have a bigger effect upon the damage it deals.

 

[DaemonDD]

Review of the game Monster Hunter Tri for the Nintendo Wii system:

The game called Monster Hunter Tri is basically what it appears to be; it's a game where you hunt monsters. As your respected monster hunter-character, you are pinned up against giant wyverns, and you have no choice but to fight the monster with all of your might. Doing so will require for you to upgrade your equipment regularily, especially your weaponry, and you will need to put a lot of effort into the game to master every aspect of it.

Gameplay:
The main gameplay element is basically a series of particularily difficult boss fights, and you have various means for defeating the monster you encounter. Usually, it's predetermined which monster you're going to encounter, and when you find it, you will need to either kill it or capture it.
The game is hard. Very hard. There is usually no way of beating the harder quests of the game if you're not putting any effort into it. Upgrading your equipment usually demands for you to pin yourself against monsters which are going to be able to kill you easily, and the only way the game is going to give you an extra chance, is by allowing you to be killed up to 2 times, but after that, the quest will fail. That doesn't mean you can take your merry time fighting the monster either. You're always required to defeat a monster within a set time-limit, and if you fail doing so, you will lose the quest and the rewards it would manufacture.
You can use a variety of weapons within around 8 weapon-categories, including the fast & swift Sword & Shield, the slow but powerful Great Sword, the protective yet still effective Lance, and the tactical Bowgun, which comes in a variety of 3 categories. Every weapon has their major ins- and outs, but every weapon can be very efficient if used correctly. It's all a question of preference.
The game also gives you the ability to hunt underwater, and even if it isn't as fast-paced as land-combat, it still works spectacularly. You are able to dodge both horizontally and vertically, and most bombs and items are usable and effective while underwater as well.
The game even comes with an online mode, where you can hunt with up to 3 other players, and if you connect an USB keyboard to the Wii, you'll be able to chat with them as well. There's sadly a region-lock however, so you're not able to play it globally, only within your respective continent.

Graphics:
The game looks astonishing. All of the areas are detailed to it's brink, every monster hunter bursts of personality, the animation for every monster is life-like, and everything empathizes with the fictional ecology represented in the franchise of Monster Hunter. The game is one of the best-looking Monster Hunter-games yet, and it's definitely the most beautiful game on the Wii-console, rivaling the effects of the Super Mario Galaxy-series.
The polygons are only noticeable if you're giving it a close and zoomed-in look, and even if some cut-scenes are with in-game graphics, they are still dynamic and looking great. It's arguable whether it lives up to the standards of the HD-consoles' graphics, but it's definitely up to par with the better-looking games on the Wii.

Sound:
The soundtrack of the game is impressive to say the least. Usually, you're running around with no background music, but when encountering a boss-monster, an eerie tune will start playing and will convert to the areas' respective battle-music. There are exceptions for when a certain monster has it's own theme, but that's not really important. Every part of the soundtrack is either atmospheric, intense, or funny depending on the situation, and most of the music is beautifully orchestrated. The game even eventually comes up with a lyrical song with a made-up language.
The sound is crisp. The roars of the monsters are varied and easily identifiable, the voices of the NPC's are lively and has a lot of personality, and it's very satisfying to connect a hit on a monster with the sound-effect it comes with. Some weapons within the same category have varied sounds as well, which can be rather refreshing.

Overall:
The good:
Intense gameplay for the more hardcore gamers who doesn't have much of a competitive spirit.
Huge variations of monsters, armors, items and weapons.
Well-executed online play.
Beautiful graphical environments and monsters.
Strategic fights.
The game is extremely long.

The bad:
Region-lock for online-mode.
Underwater is not as fast-paced as on land.
The difficulty may scare some people away from the series.
A LOT of dedication is required to beat the game both online and offline.

The score for this game is 9/10. Extremely enjoyable despite some tidbits here and there. An experience you want to share with your friends.

 

[Rub'Rum]

I tried it, it was kind of fun, but after many hours I still thought I was in some sort of tutorial. It seems to take the definition of grinding to new levels. Note that I don't have a problem with grinding usually. But it takes a long time to achieve anything and ultimately I'm not sure I was feeling super rewarded. I would if it had been just slightly shorter to do anything.

I also don't like to fail at something (say, killing a boss) when I have just invested like half an hour trying to kill it. Redoing half an hour of work... Hmm. Somehow I'd still rate this game relatively highly.

 

[Maniacal]

To add a bit to Rock of Ages, it seems the developers have been working on re-balancing the defenses and rock damage, this is the 2nd patch (that I remember) so far.

Rock of Ages
Recompiled shaders to address possible crashes on specific systems.
Recalibrated Boulder damage to castle gates. Smaller boulder sizes do less damage so that not all matches can be completed in three rolls.
Won multiplayer matches are now recorded to Steam Cloud.
Fixed several lines of Russian text that were being cut off from the GUI.
Balancing applied to specific strategic units & bosses (please visit the Steam forums for change details).

 

[DaemonDD]

I tried it, it was kind of fun, but after many hours I still thought I was in some sort of tutorial.

Yes, it has a very steep learning-curve.

 

[Maniacal]

Mmmm, heavy grinding

 

[CommonKnowledge]

Dead Island - PC

I've spent the last few days playing Dead Island and it's one of those odd games where I really want to like it but seemingly the game just wants to dissapoint me at every turn. Basically it's an open ended zombie survival/horror game with an emphasis on questing, character customisation and weapon modding. In theory it sounded great and ticked a lot of boxes for me.

The game starts well with an idyllic holiday resort gone to pot with zombies all over the place; you get given a bunch of quests and there's a heap of optionals along the way as well as rescuing passers-by. However as the game progresses it rapidly becomes more linear with less and less side quests and with many many hours of interminable sewer crawls later on.

The characters themselves seem rather flawed; you can choose between throwing, shooting, blunt and bladed weapons but they can all use them all anyway so it ultimately just boils down to numbers and largely samey talent trees. I ended up picking guns but spent most of time whacking things with a machete because guns themselves are only useful against people and akin to flinging stones at zombies.

There also seems to be a massive discrepancy between character dialogue and their actions - there was a point early on when someone asked me to fetch some gas to burn a pile of corpses. When I returned with the cans he said "hurry up these f***ers are starting to stink" and then two seconds later when I finished the quest there was a cut scence of him crying whilst burning the corpses. Oh and the accents are hilarious, it's like people who have never been to Australia doing accents gleaned only by watching Baywatch.

The weapon upgrade system boils down to numbers which is rather boring but the modification system is fun, rigging a police bation to administer lethal doses of electricity was quite good. However the prize for worst implementation in the game goes to the repair system: so right from the start you collect things which might come in handy, glue, duct tape, nails etc so you would think that in order to repair something you use that stuff. But instead you pay a workbench x amount of dollars to magically repair your stuff. It just feels really out of place and gets on my nerves.

Also weapons degrade way too fast. I can understand the logic of an oar breaking quickly but a meat cleaver breaking in ~25 swings is just stupid, it's an implement designed for cutting meat, why is it breaking so quickly? Oh and guns don't degrade which is rather weird.

I could go on about the combat, the controls and the vehicles but overall Dead Island just feels like a console game that was put onto PC at the last moment. Some controls don't even work and others are hard coded so that you can't change them, it feels sluggish and unresponsive at times and quite poorly optimised. As an example; when I turned the graphics down I could no longer see fire and steam (which can do some nasty damage) unless I was already taking damage from it.

Personally I would give Dead Island a tentative 4.5/10 (but my standards are quite high, no free 60% for it not setting my computer on fire ala Gamespot) The game sounds good but it just doesn't deliver, and what it does do is rather poor - not worth £30 in my opinion.

 

[Maniacal]

I'll be interested to see how much of it they fix up in the promised patches.

 

[CommonKnowledge]

If they can sort out the rebinding of the use key then that will be a big step - I didn't specificaly mention this before so I might as well now. Over the years PC games have repeatedly enforced apon me that 'e' is the use key for opening doors, picking things up and pulling levers. Dead Island however puts that function down to the 'f' key and 'e' kicks. So pretty much the first thing I did was rebind them so that they felt more natural.

Over the course of the game I died multiple times and lost a tonne of health because it didn't properly rebind; I would be in the middle of fending off a zombie, hit the kick key and instead my character would laboriously drink that energy drink lying on the floor instead, or close the door whilst I loose half my health. Also the driving sections are supposed to feature a handbrake if you press space, but the handbrake only works on console versions of the game.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Dead Island - PC
.....

Personally I would give Dead Island a tentative 4.5/10 (but my standards are quite high, no free 60% for it not setting my computer on fire ala Gamespot) The game sounds good but it just doesn't deliver, and what it does do is rather poor - not worth £30 in my opinion.

Anyone played this coop with some friends and is willing to give a second opinion of the game? I've heard somewhere that it's made for it but crappy in SP..