Simple open beta review!
Steep- It's honestly pretty good. Yeah, you need Uplay. Yeah, the multiplayer system has issues for some people. And some parts of the map are not quite finished looking just yet. But that's what a beta is for.
It's difficult to do the tricks on jumps until you figure out exactly how and the timing for them seems to be a bit rough, but there are plenty of good places to practice, and a large open world with a lot of varied and good rides down the mountain. Plenty of time and amusement just going around and finding things, with a lot of good places and tracks if you put some effort into it, and you can just ride or glide down with friends to relax and mess about as well.
I can't say much on the physics, as I dont often do these kind of sports myself, but I can say that controls often felt difficult. Not in a bad way, but more like you have to get used to them. The camera is often pretty poor- Mostly inconsistency and being in the exact wrong spot for what you're trying to see, but this can be fixed with a different camera mode so it only annoys until you find what works for you.
Multiplayer is sadly limited to only 4 people in a group, very clearly not many with how big a world it is, but you can share your challenges(Which you can make yourself) with as many people as you want.
Customization appears good, though I found myself not really liking most of the options. A little more variety would be nice, but it has enough to be functional and fun as is.
Worth 60 euro fun? I don't know. I feel like I need to get a fair bit more out of it before I'd feel comfortable with 60 euro. But as for someone not usually into sports games, I can say that Steep's Open Beta looks like it promises good things for the full version.
20 November, 2016
17 November, 2016
Beholder Review
Beholder is an interesting game that pretends to be more than it is. A
simple gimmick of spying on people and surveillance, but with a minimum
of actual interaction to go with it. After the first few hours, most of
the game is about finding out what the developers planned for you to do
and then following the story they wanted to tell you. If you wanted to
just spy on people and have a few renters to keep an eye on, you're in
the wrong place.
Mostly, Beholder tells you a story. And this story demands that you are a douche to everyone and extort them until they have no money left to give you before forcibly evicting them so you can steal whats left of their stuff and pawn it for spare cash. If you do not do this, you will either be given a game over or your family will die. Multiple times at that. In my one playthrough so far my son has died three times and my wife twice, forcing me to pay for five funerals for two dead family members. Through all this, people still threaten me with hurting my family which already died, and there is a good chance that if I don't go along with it they will dig up the body just so they can kill it again and force me to pay for another funeral.
There is not a lot of choice to be had, there are a few stories, and you have to just follow them. Some stories appear to have multiple paths, but in the end only a few seem to have any effect on others at all. Coupled by a world that appears to be intended seriously but comes off as a satirical joke where people try to one up eachother on cynicism, dialogue options being vague ("Tell me" -200 reputation- Could mean threatening them, right? Nope. It's asking nicely.) and the fact that you don't really get to do that much for most of the time except wait for people to leave so you can rummage through their stuff makes this more suited to something you can watch someone else play rather than something you can play yourself.
Aside from all this, I've found there to be some serious issues with Beholder, family members dying multiple times, the game not recognizing them as dead, the complete lack of manual saving, barely functional tutorial that doesn't even explain the basics right and very harsh penalties on what is essentially trial and error gameplay makes for a sadly unsatisfying experience where I found myself deciding that I was done and got the good ending after a bomb killed everyone in the building.
Graphics are simple, but they are pretty good at what they do. Renters are different enough to distinguish between them and the music works well for most of the game. I don't think it was entirely necessary to hear the basement stove turned on nearly all the time though.
There are good things to be had in Beholder, but it feels very much like they had a story and a single game mechanic planned, and then just jammed them together hoping it would work.
It doesn't, or not very well at least. The start of the game is fairly well worked out and entertaining, but then after that it mainly becomes a hunt for finding the right thing or dialogue you're expected to find while at the same time bringing in renters just to extort them for money. A routine that encourages you to not care about any of your renters, your family, or the game as a whole. And all throughout this everyone will stress how everything is bad without ever having anything good happen.
The game claims your choices have consequences, but the only choices and consequences are "Do as we intended for you to do or you and/or your family will die" with nearly no room for error. Even if you accept the loss of one or two family members you do not have many meaningful choices, seemingly by design.
Take that as you will, but I can not in good conscience recommend it to anyone but those who are the most hyped about spying on people while also being a fan of passive gameplay.
Mostly, Beholder tells you a story. And this story demands that you are a douche to everyone and extort them until they have no money left to give you before forcibly evicting them so you can steal whats left of their stuff and pawn it for spare cash. If you do not do this, you will either be given a game over or your family will die. Multiple times at that. In my one playthrough so far my son has died three times and my wife twice, forcing me to pay for five funerals for two dead family members. Through all this, people still threaten me with hurting my family which already died, and there is a good chance that if I don't go along with it they will dig up the body just so they can kill it again and force me to pay for another funeral.
There is not a lot of choice to be had, there are a few stories, and you have to just follow them. Some stories appear to have multiple paths, but in the end only a few seem to have any effect on others at all. Coupled by a world that appears to be intended seriously but comes off as a satirical joke where people try to one up eachother on cynicism, dialogue options being vague ("Tell me" -200 reputation- Could mean threatening them, right? Nope. It's asking nicely.) and the fact that you don't really get to do that much for most of the time except wait for people to leave so you can rummage through their stuff makes this more suited to something you can watch someone else play rather than something you can play yourself.
Aside from all this, I've found there to be some serious issues with Beholder, family members dying multiple times, the game not recognizing them as dead, the complete lack of manual saving, barely functional tutorial that doesn't even explain the basics right and very harsh penalties on what is essentially trial and error gameplay makes for a sadly unsatisfying experience where I found myself deciding that I was done and got the good ending after a bomb killed everyone in the building.
Graphics are simple, but they are pretty good at what they do. Renters are different enough to distinguish between them and the music works well for most of the game. I don't think it was entirely necessary to hear the basement stove turned on nearly all the time though.
There are good things to be had in Beholder, but it feels very much like they had a story and a single game mechanic planned, and then just jammed them together hoping it would work.
It doesn't, or not very well at least. The start of the game is fairly well worked out and entertaining, but then after that it mainly becomes a hunt for finding the right thing or dialogue you're expected to find while at the same time bringing in renters just to extort them for money. A routine that encourages you to not care about any of your renters, your family, or the game as a whole. And all throughout this everyone will stress how everything is bad without ever having anything good happen.
The game claims your choices have consequences, but the only choices and consequences are "Do as we intended for you to do or you and/or your family will die" with nearly no room for error. Even if you accept the loss of one or two family members you do not have many meaningful choices, seemingly by design.
Take that as you will, but I can not in good conscience recommend it to anyone but those who are the most hyped about spying on people while also being a fan of passive gameplay.
02 November, 2016
Helldivers Review
Helldivers is a surprisingly well made semi-casual (You can pick it up, do a few runs of 20 minutes each and then drop it, or play for hours) game that allows for a
decent amount of optimizing. Mainly group based, it has a good
matchmaking system that lets you literally drop in on someone with a
drop pod and get right into the action. Or you can make a pre-made group
and plan out your entire mission before launching. All this, for
Super-Earth.
There are a large amount of weapons available, most well balanced and almost all viable, useful, and easy to use. (Point the loud end at the enemy), with plenty more called in 'stratagems' which range from defensive turrets to airstrikes, to supply drops. There is plenty of variety should you feel like playing with a different style for a change, and it's all viable. The only thing is that you may need to upgrade your items a bit before they reach their full potential.
Upgrading items is easy enough, with the upgrades clear on what they give you, and not too hard to get. You find samples during missions and 10 of these become one research point. It's fast enough to be noticeable progress, but also slow enough that you don't get to just unlock everything and then ignore it.
There are three different kinds of enemies, all with recognizable themes while their mechanics are different enough to be interesting in their own ways, requiring slightly different tactics or loadouts. The game's theme is excellent, with some small bits of humour in the over-the-top Super-Earth and the player character's zeal in spreading democracy. A few very well made one liners and a great overall wholesome fitting theme works well for pulling you in and giving the game a great identity that is worth coming back to.
With missions seeming to be randomly generated, the ability to drop in on any game or to team up with friends while using a varied, well balanced arsenal puts Helldivers firmly in the category of "Good games". Without any noticeable flaws and gameplay that keeps you entertained, it is certainly worth it.
There are a large amount of weapons available, most well balanced and almost all viable, useful, and easy to use. (Point the loud end at the enemy), with plenty more called in 'stratagems' which range from defensive turrets to airstrikes, to supply drops. There is plenty of variety should you feel like playing with a different style for a change, and it's all viable. The only thing is that you may need to upgrade your items a bit before they reach their full potential.
Upgrading items is easy enough, with the upgrades clear on what they give you, and not too hard to get. You find samples during missions and 10 of these become one research point. It's fast enough to be noticeable progress, but also slow enough that you don't get to just unlock everything and then ignore it.
There are three different kinds of enemies, all with recognizable themes while their mechanics are different enough to be interesting in their own ways, requiring slightly different tactics or loadouts. The game's theme is excellent, with some small bits of humour in the over-the-top Super-Earth and the player character's zeal in spreading democracy. A few very well made one liners and a great overall wholesome fitting theme works well for pulling you in and giving the game a great identity that is worth coming back to.
With missions seeming to be randomly generated, the ability to drop in on any game or to team up with friends while using a varied, well balanced arsenal puts Helldivers firmly in the category of "Good games". Without any noticeable flaws and gameplay that keeps you entertained, it is certainly worth it.
15 October, 2016
Heroes and Generals Review
Heroes and Generals is now out of early access, so lets take a look!
Excellent foundation, Good technical achievements, incredibly poor design choices and missing management.
That about sums it up. But lets elaborate on that.
The foundation of the game- The battles themselves as infantryman are good. Vehicles are well done and fighting over the objectives tends to be pretty big a deal. The physics and gun system are good, once you get past the poor rifle you get at the start of the game, and it becomes more enjoyable when you can actually use a gun that shoots more than spitballs. But then there are things missing, and the game is not really set up for big encounters like it has the maps for. Prepare for a profound feeling of emptiness as you go through a city that is supposedly under attack but without anyone defending anything except one building that has been marked as the objective, and battles happening almost exclusively on a line from your point to the enemy point.
Flanking works well, you can stay still and let your camo make you near invisible even with the default uniforms, but this is not really used that much. You can use it all, be the ultimate soldier, and you will likely still not do as well as the guy who just camped the attic of the capture point and shot four guys who tried to dislodge him by making him run out of bullets. There is no penalty for dying- Not for you at least, but more on that later, and you don't really get rewarded for anything you do either. You play to play, and you win because you want to win.
Then lets get right to the poor design choices. This game is not just pay to win, but pay to progress. The way it is set up is to encourage you as a new player to quit and find an other game. Do you want to group up with a few friends? If there's more than two, then you have to pay for that or you need to spend some time grinding the 'skill' of having a group. After that, prepare for a lot more grind, as you will need several hours just to get the basics for a soldier. And if you want to do anything other than carry a basic rifle and maybe some grenades, you're going to need to grind hard just to afford your own ammo and gun modifications, because every single bullet shot, grenade thrown, mine placed or vehicle you use will cost you a lot. This leads directly to the playerbase adapting to the mentality;
Life is cheap. Ammo is expensive.
If you shoot someone you should pick up their gun because 9 times out of 10 it will be better than yours, even if you've spend 50+ hours on the game.
Of course there are other issues, mainly around balance and the 'generals' portion of the game. I'll spare you the complaints on balance- It's the usual for pay to win games, but more on that other bit later.
That said, if you don't mind the grind, and are fine using subpar weapons for most of your starting hours(10+) the basic infantry combat is good stuff. Moving along to tanks you will find that they're not amazing, but certainly entertaining and useful. Your view is a bit limited when using them but you can generally work them quite well. Airplanes are a joke and they likely always will be, do not even consider getting a fighter because you will be less useful to your team than if you had nothing but a pistol and the idea that you might surprise the enemy if you drive your car right at them. Controls are awful, planes don't do anything, and you take up a valuable spot on the team that could have been used by someone useful. Prepare for a long time of flying around not seeing anything and not doing anything.
And then on to the big complaint with this game, when you're not accounting for the fact that you may as well just be playing a basic trial of the game unless you pay them lots of money. The generals part.
It may as well not exist.
The game may even be better if it did not exist.
The entire generals section is deeply flawed to the point that it is literally unplayable.
First you need to slowly grind your way up to being allowed to use it. Then you will need to spend 3+ days to wait for a small squad of the absolute lowest tier divisions to spawn so you can use them. They will die in about 5 minutes and they will have gained no experience. Everything except infantry is essentially impossible to afford unless you pay the devs money for it, which will last only a few days at most and then you lose them. The map is incredibly poor and you will never have anything resembling a strategy- Merely people throwing their units around hoping it works. Sometimes it does work too, but this is never because of any skill at command.
It all comes down to the people playing the war battles. And they don't care. People will spawn in expensive tanks so that they can drive up to a building and get it blown up by AT. Because they don't have to pay for those tanks. The guy who got the tank brigade does. Same for airplanes, infantry spawns and vehicles. Why would they care that you've waited 3 days to get your infantry squad filled? They will run into machinegun fire and then respawn to do it again until you lose your squad. They will spawn every single vehicle available when they have 1000 infantry spawns and 300 vehicle spawns and they fight 160 infantry and 10 vehicles. And because these vehicles despawn after use, they are gone and they remain gone. The only thing here for you is frustration and poorly designed mechanics, a map that does not work properly and ideas that died before they were put into the game.
And that is most of what you will find when you manage to progress past being a basic rifleman with stock gun. A game with great ideas, pretty good technical achievements, but a team that does not understand even the most basic of design and doesn't care either. Greed above all else, and a complete lack of awareness.
Long ago when this was an early build I gave them a small bit of cash because they had a great concept, good basic gameplay, and claimed to have plans to make it better. I wanted to support them, since they were a small group that seemed to be making something great.
I regret that.
I could have burned that money and it would have gone to better use. The game isn't better than it was back then. It's worse, and it's showing no signs of ever improving.
Excellent foundation, Good technical achievements, incredibly poor design choices and missing management.
That about sums it up. But lets elaborate on that.
The foundation of the game- The battles themselves as infantryman are good. Vehicles are well done and fighting over the objectives tends to be pretty big a deal. The physics and gun system are good, once you get past the poor rifle you get at the start of the game, and it becomes more enjoyable when you can actually use a gun that shoots more than spitballs. But then there are things missing, and the game is not really set up for big encounters like it has the maps for. Prepare for a profound feeling of emptiness as you go through a city that is supposedly under attack but without anyone defending anything except one building that has been marked as the objective, and battles happening almost exclusively on a line from your point to the enemy point.
Flanking works well, you can stay still and let your camo make you near invisible even with the default uniforms, but this is not really used that much. You can use it all, be the ultimate soldier, and you will likely still not do as well as the guy who just camped the attic of the capture point and shot four guys who tried to dislodge him by making him run out of bullets. There is no penalty for dying- Not for you at least, but more on that later, and you don't really get rewarded for anything you do either. You play to play, and you win because you want to win.
Then lets get right to the poor design choices. This game is not just pay to win, but pay to progress. The way it is set up is to encourage you as a new player to quit and find an other game. Do you want to group up with a few friends? If there's more than two, then you have to pay for that or you need to spend some time grinding the 'skill' of having a group. After that, prepare for a lot more grind, as you will need several hours just to get the basics for a soldier. And if you want to do anything other than carry a basic rifle and maybe some grenades, you're going to need to grind hard just to afford your own ammo and gun modifications, because every single bullet shot, grenade thrown, mine placed or vehicle you use will cost you a lot. This leads directly to the playerbase adapting to the mentality;
Life is cheap. Ammo is expensive.
If you shoot someone you should pick up their gun because 9 times out of 10 it will be better than yours, even if you've spend 50+ hours on the game.
Of course there are other issues, mainly around balance and the 'generals' portion of the game. I'll spare you the complaints on balance- It's the usual for pay to win games, but more on that other bit later.
That said, if you don't mind the grind, and are fine using subpar weapons for most of your starting hours(10+) the basic infantry combat is good stuff. Moving along to tanks you will find that they're not amazing, but certainly entertaining and useful. Your view is a bit limited when using them but you can generally work them quite well. Airplanes are a joke and they likely always will be, do not even consider getting a fighter because you will be less useful to your team than if you had nothing but a pistol and the idea that you might surprise the enemy if you drive your car right at them. Controls are awful, planes don't do anything, and you take up a valuable spot on the team that could have been used by someone useful. Prepare for a long time of flying around not seeing anything and not doing anything.
And then on to the big complaint with this game, when you're not accounting for the fact that you may as well just be playing a basic trial of the game unless you pay them lots of money. The generals part.
It may as well not exist.
The game may even be better if it did not exist.
The entire generals section is deeply flawed to the point that it is literally unplayable.
First you need to slowly grind your way up to being allowed to use it. Then you will need to spend 3+ days to wait for a small squad of the absolute lowest tier divisions to spawn so you can use them. They will die in about 5 minutes and they will have gained no experience. Everything except infantry is essentially impossible to afford unless you pay the devs money for it, which will last only a few days at most and then you lose them. The map is incredibly poor and you will never have anything resembling a strategy- Merely people throwing their units around hoping it works. Sometimes it does work too, but this is never because of any skill at command.
It all comes down to the people playing the war battles. And they don't care. People will spawn in expensive tanks so that they can drive up to a building and get it blown up by AT. Because they don't have to pay for those tanks. The guy who got the tank brigade does. Same for airplanes, infantry spawns and vehicles. Why would they care that you've waited 3 days to get your infantry squad filled? They will run into machinegun fire and then respawn to do it again until you lose your squad. They will spawn every single vehicle available when they have 1000 infantry spawns and 300 vehicle spawns and they fight 160 infantry and 10 vehicles. And because these vehicles despawn after use, they are gone and they remain gone. The only thing here for you is frustration and poorly designed mechanics, a map that does not work properly and ideas that died before they were put into the game.
And that is most of what you will find when you manage to progress past being a basic rifleman with stock gun. A game with great ideas, pretty good technical achievements, but a team that does not understand even the most basic of design and doesn't care either. Greed above all else, and a complete lack of awareness.
Long ago when this was an early build I gave them a small bit of cash because they had a great concept, good basic gameplay, and claimed to have plans to make it better. I wanted to support them, since they were a small group that seemed to be making something great.
I regret that.
I could have burned that money and it would have gone to better use. The game isn't better than it was back then. It's worse, and it's showing no signs of ever improving.
28 September, 2016
80 Days Review
80 days - To travel around the world, west to east from London to London. In what is a story based game about adventuring, route optimization, wondrous stories and relaxing rides through an alternate 1872 as the valet to a well known gentleman who has made a wager.
Along the way you will need to manage funding, items, packing, and selecting the routes to follow. It sounds simple, but it is complex enough to keep you busy.
To get it out of the way, yes, this is phone game. Do not let that scare you off, all it truly means for you as a PC gamer is that even your most outdated toaster can run it, the controls are simple and they do not need to be any more complex to do what you need to do. Game mechanics themselves do not suffer either, with a great majority of your options being simple choices in dialogue. Choices that actually do matter many times, with stories to tell you that I found surprisingly pleasant and interesting to read.
You can embark on an adventure and enjoy a richly filled world while balancing your own interest at exploration and your task as valet to keep monsieur Fogg in good condition and comfortable, on track to win his wager. It is not difficult to make it in 80 days if you try and plan things out in advance, but often there will be opportunities and potential rewards just a little off your chosen path. A lot of tempting things can drag you out to somewhere you didn't intend and it can both be a great boon to your funds and travel time or a disaster. With every city and most travel lines in the game having their own or connected stories, you will need multiple playthroughs to see them all. And even then it may not be likely unless you actively try.
Losing is alright as well. The wager won't bankrupt you, and you will be able to just try again. After all, why bet only once? A playthrough will take about an hour, perhaps a bit more or less depending on how much of a rush you are in.
But then there are some things that you should probably not get very hyped about either. Racing other people? Live multiplayer feed? Unless you actively go looking on the map for them, you likely won't find others except near the start. Even then, there is no interactions with them and I have yet to notice any sort of multiplayer feed. At best there are some icons on the map of where others went before you, and some things you aren't told and have to find out the hard way(Leaving a train at a midway stop when you have a ticket to the final destination of the train voids your ticket. You aren't allowed to get back on with the next train passing by. Some routes don't let you resume at all if you buy only a partway ticket, and so on)
The game is surprisingly easy to break as well, crashing or freezing if you try to do too much at once. A good autosave system helps with this, so you likely won't have issues- Just start it back up and you're back to where you were.
But in the end, these are small issues that don't actually hold it back.
80 days is a great game that tells you a story, while giving you full control over the story it tells, with excellently fitting graphics and amazingly done mood setting. Its flaws are few and easily forgivable, with a very competitive price to make it definitely a worthwhile buy.
Along the way you will need to manage funding, items, packing, and selecting the routes to follow. It sounds simple, but it is complex enough to keep you busy.
To get it out of the way, yes, this is phone game. Do not let that scare you off, all it truly means for you as a PC gamer is that even your most outdated toaster can run it, the controls are simple and they do not need to be any more complex to do what you need to do. Game mechanics themselves do not suffer either, with a great majority of your options being simple choices in dialogue. Choices that actually do matter many times, with stories to tell you that I found surprisingly pleasant and interesting to read.
You can embark on an adventure and enjoy a richly filled world while balancing your own interest at exploration and your task as valet to keep monsieur Fogg in good condition and comfortable, on track to win his wager. It is not difficult to make it in 80 days if you try and plan things out in advance, but often there will be opportunities and potential rewards just a little off your chosen path. A lot of tempting things can drag you out to somewhere you didn't intend and it can both be a great boon to your funds and travel time or a disaster. With every city and most travel lines in the game having their own or connected stories, you will need multiple playthroughs to see them all. And even then it may not be likely unless you actively try.
Losing is alright as well. The wager won't bankrupt you, and you will be able to just try again. After all, why bet only once? A playthrough will take about an hour, perhaps a bit more or less depending on how much of a rush you are in.
But then there are some things that you should probably not get very hyped about either. Racing other people? Live multiplayer feed? Unless you actively go looking on the map for them, you likely won't find others except near the start. Even then, there is no interactions with them and I have yet to notice any sort of multiplayer feed. At best there are some icons on the map of where others went before you, and some things you aren't told and have to find out the hard way(Leaving a train at a midway stop when you have a ticket to the final destination of the train voids your ticket. You aren't allowed to get back on with the next train passing by. Some routes don't let you resume at all if you buy only a partway ticket, and so on)
The game is surprisingly easy to break as well, crashing or freezing if you try to do too much at once. A good autosave system helps with this, so you likely won't have issues- Just start it back up and you're back to where you were.
But in the end, these are small issues that don't actually hold it back.
80 days is a great game that tells you a story, while giving you full control over the story it tells, with excellently fitting graphics and amazingly done mood setting. Its flaws are few and easily forgivable, with a very competitive price to make it definitely a worthwhile buy.
18 September, 2016
The Storm Guard: Darkness is Coming Review
The Storm Guard: Darkness is Coming is an interesting mixture of many
ideas brought together in a single game, yet combining many good ideas
is not always a good idea itself.
I find myself conflicted, since I want to like this game, but I am considering to refund it while I still can. Nobody will see the screenshots and go in expecting good graphics, but I will say that the graphics and animations are actually quite decent. Though the screenshots featured put them in a good light, in game you will find that most models are less pleasing to look at close. That said, they aren't why I was considering refunding.
The reason for that is that for everything this game does, there are other games who do it better. Nothing here is very bad bad, but nothing is exemplary or exceptionally good either. During most of my time playing this, I thought back to other games who did as this does but arguably better. Sure, none of those games combine all the features offered in The Storm Guard, but they focus on making those few that they do offer great.
There is a village and narrator, Darkest Dungeon style. But less interesting to listen to, and the village appears less complex and with some interface quirks that are not very intuitive.
The combat itself is interesting, but ultimately it just doesn't offer that much depth past 'Put the guy with a shield up front'. Maybe this will change further into the game, maybe not. I can't say I'll make it that far when it takes more than an hour to gain a single level on a hero, and with them potentially dying I would certainly hate to have to re-train them.
Another thing you will quickly notice seems to be directly from Darkest Dungeon as well is the dungeon map system, except it simplifies it even further. Move from encounter tile to encounter tile, eat food along the way. Dungeons are simply encounters connected together through minimal narration- Like a DnD game ran by a newbie DM, rather than actual dungeons and a world full of story it feels like a string of random encounters, followed by a semi-random boss fight that often may as well be a regular random encounter.
As a whole, and in individual parts, it just doesn't have the complexity to justify the overal average-ness of the game. It's certainly not bad, but I feel very much like there just isn't anything for me to do aside from positioning. Deciding what hero goes onto a mission didn't feel very important, and then there is no inventory for me to bother with either, nor complex armour or weapon management. The interface is slightly clumsy, that's not really an issue- You can learn the quirks. But one of the big things in a tactical combat game is that you need to see, at a glance, what's going on. You can't do that as there does not appear to be much of any indication that for example your hero's movement points are reduced until you get to his turn and find that he can't move as far. All the combats appear very similar, with no significant changes outside of scenery. Outside of combat the repetitiveness doesn't fare much better. All missions appear to be of the 'move to tile and kill stuff' variety, even if their description and reason for killing these things are different.
In conclusion, I had expected a somewhat quirky turn based tactical combat game, one with interesting maps and a lot of interesting combat scenarios. In the end, I didn't get any of that. While I can see the potential, The Storm Guard is most alike a string of fights generated by a random encounter generator, with some narration about why this is happening and sometimes a choice which encounter you want to fight.
Perhaps if it goes on a sale it's worth it, but there is no way I can recommend this for 20 euro.
I think I just convinced myself to refund it.
I find myself conflicted, since I want to like this game, but I am considering to refund it while I still can. Nobody will see the screenshots and go in expecting good graphics, but I will say that the graphics and animations are actually quite decent. Though the screenshots featured put them in a good light, in game you will find that most models are less pleasing to look at close. That said, they aren't why I was considering refunding.
The reason for that is that for everything this game does, there are other games who do it better. Nothing here is very bad bad, but nothing is exemplary or exceptionally good either. During most of my time playing this, I thought back to other games who did as this does but arguably better. Sure, none of those games combine all the features offered in The Storm Guard, but they focus on making those few that they do offer great.
There is a village and narrator, Darkest Dungeon style. But less interesting to listen to, and the village appears less complex and with some interface quirks that are not very intuitive.
The combat itself is interesting, but ultimately it just doesn't offer that much depth past 'Put the guy with a shield up front'. Maybe this will change further into the game, maybe not. I can't say I'll make it that far when it takes more than an hour to gain a single level on a hero, and with them potentially dying I would certainly hate to have to re-train them.
Another thing you will quickly notice seems to be directly from Darkest Dungeon as well is the dungeon map system, except it simplifies it even further. Move from encounter tile to encounter tile, eat food along the way. Dungeons are simply encounters connected together through minimal narration- Like a DnD game ran by a newbie DM, rather than actual dungeons and a world full of story it feels like a string of random encounters, followed by a semi-random boss fight that often may as well be a regular random encounter.
As a whole, and in individual parts, it just doesn't have the complexity to justify the overal average-ness of the game. It's certainly not bad, but I feel very much like there just isn't anything for me to do aside from positioning. Deciding what hero goes onto a mission didn't feel very important, and then there is no inventory for me to bother with either, nor complex armour or weapon management. The interface is slightly clumsy, that's not really an issue- You can learn the quirks. But one of the big things in a tactical combat game is that you need to see, at a glance, what's going on. You can't do that as there does not appear to be much of any indication that for example your hero's movement points are reduced until you get to his turn and find that he can't move as far. All the combats appear very similar, with no significant changes outside of scenery. Outside of combat the repetitiveness doesn't fare much better. All missions appear to be of the 'move to tile and kill stuff' variety, even if their description and reason for killing these things are different.
In conclusion, I had expected a somewhat quirky turn based tactical combat game, one with interesting maps and a lot of interesting combat scenarios. In the end, I didn't get any of that. While I can see the potential, The Storm Guard is most alike a string of fights generated by a random encounter generator, with some narration about why this is happening and sometimes a choice which encounter you want to fight.
Perhaps if it goes on a sale it's worth it, but there is no way I can recommend this for 20 euro.
I think I just convinced myself to refund it.
08 September, 2016
Where I've been
As it's been a bit over a month without review, I figured I'd place a message to say why. So here it is, my reasons for not writing a review in the last month or any other post.
Stellaris and Overwatch.
That's pretty much it. Stellaris I won't review because as a general rule I don't review products in alpha states, and Overwatch I didn't review because there honestly isn't that much for me to say that would actually be useful.
I can write entire essays on its design and analysing it, but in the end it will all come down to two things:
1. They knew exactly what they were doing and designed perfectly for their intended target audience
2. I am not their target audience.
Without being salty about it, I can still play it and pass the time, but I can not say I enjoy it much. It's certainly a decent enough game that I would call it good if pressed on it and fully reviewing it, but I will never call it a great game. I can call a lot of the design choices bad because I personally disagree with them, but truth is that for the majority of players all those choices are acceptable or even very good ones. Choices that would have been taken specifically to cater to a specific kind of player that just isn't me.
It's okay, really. I can write a long list of complaints, but most of those are just going to get summed up as their target audience being significantly different from me. I still like playing it with friends, but everything is fun and playable with friends, so that's not really anything to judge things on.
That's where I've been. That, and not finding games I find it worthwhile to review.
Though I will probably put out a review in the next few weeks anyway
Stellaris and Overwatch.
That's pretty much it. Stellaris I won't review because as a general rule I don't review products in alpha states, and Overwatch I didn't review because there honestly isn't that much for me to say that would actually be useful.
I can write entire essays on its design and analysing it, but in the end it will all come down to two things:
1. They knew exactly what they were doing and designed perfectly for their intended target audience
2. I am not their target audience.
Without being salty about it, I can still play it and pass the time, but I can not say I enjoy it much. It's certainly a decent enough game that I would call it good if pressed on it and fully reviewing it, but I will never call it a great game. I can call a lot of the design choices bad because I personally disagree with them, but truth is that for the majority of players all those choices are acceptable or even very good ones. Choices that would have been taken specifically to cater to a specific kind of player that just isn't me.
It's okay, really. I can write a long list of complaints, but most of those are just going to get summed up as their target audience being significantly different from me. I still like playing it with friends, but everything is fun and playable with friends, so that's not really anything to judge things on.
That's where I've been. That, and not finding games I find it worthwhile to review.
Though I will probably put out a review in the next few weeks anyway
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)