Average User Score: 8.7Jan 4, 2015Best combat system. It's like a turned base RPG that plays a little like X-COM but with AP, more important environments, and no cover.Best combat system. It's like a turned base RPG that plays a little like X-COM but with AP, more important environments, and no cover.
Story isn't the greatest story ever told, but it's competent and often dumbly funny enough to be entertaining.
Quests are obtuse sometimes, with no clear correct answer to the question, "So, where do I go?" This is fine, it just makes you explore and fight more. All good things. Pretty excited to play more.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.2Mar 11, 2014Note: I have not finished this game, I have only played approximately 8 hours of it. I will do a brief list of pros and cons because it'sNote: I have not finished this game, I have only played approximately 8 hours of it. I will do a brief list of pros and cons because it's really the easiest way to compare it to the first game. Pros: Combat is more interesting with more ways to counter attack and better magic systems, Enemy AI is improved (still not perfect, of course), immediately available fast travel, more encouragement for online play through the new humanity system, vastly improved covenants, better stats, more diverse and interesting environments (there are some seriously cool places). Cons: One single leveling location - such a time waster, sound design isn't as good... that's about it.
So far it seems like a great game.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.2Feb 3, 2014This game, in no way, attempts to imitate TF2. Sure, it has a cartoony art style, but you wouldn't say that TF2 tries to imitate Loony Toons,This game, in no way, attempts to imitate TF2. Sure, it has a cartoony art style, but you wouldn't say that TF2 tries to imitate Loony Toons, would you? This game has a high skill ceiling, and it's apparent who in these reviews is at the bottom of the food chain. This game is a totally solid shooter, is a play-to-win free game (not pay-to-win,) and emulates games like Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament with its blazing fast pace and precision gun play. The icing on the cake? Players use guns they assemble themselves. It's totally awesome, and worth playing. I got on here expecting a 8-9 user score for this game. I am totally blown away that it is a 4.4 at the time of this review. Ludicrous.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.2Feb 19, 2013A decent puzzle game for $15. Had the price remained that, the score would have easily been a 8/10. However, as it stands, this game is notA decent puzzle game for $15. Had the price remained that, the score would have easily been a 8/10. However, as it stands, this game is not worth $20. I know it's just $5 bucks, but the game is a bit too shallow and incomplete for that extra dough.
Anyway, onto the game. The graphics are unique and engrossing. It's an Unreal Engine 3 game that's been filtered to hell and back, and it comes out the other side looking like some kind of ink drawing. It's really kinda neat... but the game relies a lot on style. Sometimes the ambient noises and strange sound effects are pretty irritating. The puzzle mechanics can't help but feel wasted. Immediately, the non-Euclidean, illusory nature of the level design becomes apparent... but then the game devolves into puzzles based on a puzzle-gun, reminiscent of the portal gun from Portal. Instead of portals, however, the gun shoots blocks. Hardly an interesting concept, but the puzzles that utilize the gun are fairly interesting and sometimes quite tricky. However... some puzzles are irritating because at first glance, it seems there is no hint telling you about your need for extra equipment. That leads to puzzles seeming solvable when they are, in fact, not. That's poor game design, flat out. That led me to second guessing whether puzzles were solvable or not, which in turn led me in circles, easily doubling the amount of time it took to complete the game... and adding to my frustration.
On another note, the overall level design is impossible to really grasp. It's an incredible accomplishment on that front... the entire game is one level, and can be completely traversed seamlessly. That really means something special once you realize that there are dozens of puzzles crammed in there somewhere. Sometimes, turning around can put you in a completely different room... it really makes the player feel like they can't rely on a "room" or a "hallway" as an overall concept. The game does a good job of destroying your basic conceptions of geometry. I laughed a few times when the game tricked me into feeling secure about knowing where I was. I would walk into a room, see a sign on the wall, turn around, and... welp, I'm in a completely different room... and sometimes? I could turn around a third time and end up in yet ANOTHER room. This game can really surprise you.
Sometimes, I would feel like I was going to outsmart the game. The game rewarded me with Easter eggs, such as some behind the scenes stuff, concept art, and in one occasion, a map of a particularly confusing hallway-based puzzle. This kind of reminds me of Portal, but instead of fleshing out the world, it shows a little bit about the game itself... almost like a "Bonus Features" section of a DVD. This is a nice change from Portal. I am very happy that the creator of this game elected to ignore story and provide a game instead. I wasn't going to believe whatever nonsense he tried to feed me about this bizarre, yet wonderful location.
One final note about how good the playable space is designed:
It takes many hours to complete on your first play through, probably 5 or 6 on average. I completed a subsequent play through in eight minutes. This game is full of shortcuts, and big ones are often right in your face and you just don't seem them. It takes some talent to hide the obvious by putting it in plain sight.
So, in conclusion:
1. Too expensive for what it is.
2. Game has minor incomplete elements.
3. Puzzles are sometimes disappointing.
4. Game design is sometimes poorly thought out.
5. Relies too much on style... which is strange for a puzzle game.
1. The level design is just *that* special level of good, where you actually notice how good it is.
2. Usage of Non-Euclidean space is very entertaining to navigate, and often exciting!
3. Game is full of secrets and Easter eggs.
4. The game doesn't even attempt to explain itself, which was a good choice. We didn't need another Portal 2.
5. Again, the level design is amazing.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.7Feb 19, 2013Excellent PC port of an excellent game! Ignore the copious amounts of terrible user reviews. People have an issue with reboots, and that's aExcellent PC port of an excellent game! Ignore the copious amounts of terrible user reviews. People have an issue with reboots, and that's a problem I can understand. The only time a reboot is a positive thing is when the new version of the game/franchise is distinctly different or better. Fortunately, this is a case where the game is both better and different, taking the basic idea of the original series and pushing it in smart, often surprising, directions. Story is fine, quite funny in parts, and generally well directed and acted. The action is smooth, controls are tight, and the combat is easy to learn and hard to master. I can not fathom how the user score is below an eight for this game (oh wait, this is Metacritic, where people spam 0's for games that offend their delicate sensibilities.) This game is a blast to play, and maybe the best Capcom game since Dead Rising.
This game performs wonderfully, never dropping below 60 fps 1920x1080 at maximum settings on a three year old PC.
A special note on replayability: The game has multiple extremely difficult challenge modes that are unlocked after completing the game. People who claim this game is dumbed down and easier than the old series doing know what they're talking about. When I see a video of these people beating the hardest difficulty, I will become a believer in their cause.… Expand
Average User Score: 5.2Jan 16, 2013Ignore the user score for this game, it, like so many other decent games, has been artificially lowered by fan-boys and other individuals forIgnore the user score for this game, it, like so many other decent games, has been artificially lowered by fan-boys and other individuals for a few very specific, very dumb reasons. First, the majority of these people are by and large fans of Devil May Cry 1, 3, and 4, which are decent games. They ignore the fact that Devil May Cry 2 was terrible, and that Devil May Cry 4 was hardly innovative or interesting at all. Besides that, they are upset that this game is a reboot of a franchise they used to love. It's as simple as that. They make no claims to the quality of the game, and if they do, they are lying. Nobody in their right mind could possibly give this game a 0/10 score. It's not possible. At minimum, this game should be a 6/10. It's got quite a lot of good things about it, and my experience with it is a solid 9/10 experience. I've had a TON of fun, the combat is fluid, graphics are great, the humor is just stupid enough, and I feel it stays true to the Devil May Cry experience. I don't know where these other people are getting off on calling this game complete garbage. This game is pretty damn good, and is far superior to DMC2 or DMC4 in terms of level design, combat, and innovation. Some people are just too stubborn to enjoy themselves, I guess.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.4Nov 8, 2012Natural Selection 2 is a game that rewards teamwork and skill with amazing victories and surprising comebacks. A good game can last an hour,Natural Selection 2 is a game that rewards teamwork and skill with amazing victories and surprising comebacks. A good game can last an hour, or twenty minutes, depending on how well your team bands together to defeat the other team, be it the ranged-combat Marines, or the close combat Kharaa (or Aliens.) Each team has one player that plays from the perspective of an RTS. That player sees the game from a top-down perspective, places structures (which Marines have to build for the Marine team,) and works to guide the team. The main goal is to take out the other team's command station (that is, the Marine's Command Stations or the Alien Hives.) Thus, if the game isn't over quickly due to a Zerg-like rush from the Aliens or a stomping Marine power-play (which is fortunately rarer and rarer,) the game becomes a mix of putting pressure on the other team and capturing resource nodes and tech points. Each team does this quite differently. The Marines get all sorts of technological upgrades, like teleporters, mobile siege turrets, jetpacks, grenade launchers, shotguns, and the amazing Exosuits. The Aliens get biological upgrades, or evolutions, that provide additional abilities to their life forms. Examples of this are Carapace, which gives the aliens additional armor, Leap, which allows Skulks (the base life form that can run on walls.) to leap a good distance, and Stomp, which allows the Onos (the massive Gorilla-meets-Rhinoceros alien) to send a shock-wave through a team of Marines that knocks them down. There are many more than these, but you get the idea.
The graphics are slick, the gameplay is extremely well balance (if you read anything else, they were on a bad team or fighting a bad team. Two competent teams will have a balanced match.) and the teams are fun to play. Shooting is very solid, biting a little, tiny bit less solid, but still good enough on its own. Commanding is a blast once you get the hang of it (I particularly enjoy leading Aliens to victory.) Overall, this game has a little of everything, including unmatchable mod support, and community support. Unknown Worlds Entertainment owe their existence to the community, and they don't forget that.
Pros: Balance, Aliens are awesome, Marines are awesome, RTS elements are well done, maps are good, graphics are slick, performs fine on an i5-750 @ 3.0 GHz, 4 GB RAM, HD 6970 2GB.
Cons: Load times can be a bit long (should be addressed in a patch this week,) server browser can be laggy, occasional crashing and freezing for some users.… Expand
Average User Score: 5.8Jul 17, 2012APB Reloaded is a peculiar game. It's fun and completely awful all at the same time. The most controversial aspect of this game is it's usageAPB Reloaded is a peculiar game. It's fun and completely awful all at the same time. The most controversial aspect of this game is it's usage of the Free-to-play model, a significant change from it's original incarnation as a subscription based game. However, this model always begs the question: Do you actually have to pay money to play this game against other paying players? In this case, the answer is unfortunately a resounding "Yes!!!" Using in-game money received from beating missions (which I have significant issues, as you'll read momentarily) only unlocks weapons for 10 days. Additionally, not all weapon types are available for purchase using the in-game money. Some of the most powerful weapons in the game (the OCA "Whisper," for example) are only available for purchase using G1 credits -- otherwise known as real money. This type of F2P model is horribly unattractive to me. If you offer a game for free, don't restrict the fun to the people that play. Why would I want to spend the time and hard drive space to download your game if it's going to play like I'm outside of your friend's list? No thanks. Now, moving on to the structure of missions: Each time you enter a mission, you are rolling the dice to play against random people of the opposing faction. This often consists of rushing to objectives, protecting, attacking, spraying the wall, defusing bombs, investigating, or any other possible extrapolation of "go there, do a thing, and then repeat somewhere else." It gets old fast. The match making system is terrible as well. Each player has a rank (Green, Bronze, Silver, or Gold) based on how many missions they win. I was Silver, and only once was I matched against other Silver players. I was consistently put against players with far, far superior equipment, more experience, and more skill, despite the fact that there were many, many people at my skill level in the "Silver" server. That being said, it was still fun because it's basically Grand Theft Auto. A Grand Theft Auto clone MMO. How did they screw that up? It's very clearly designed to make money -- not that every game isn't, but good games hide that behind skillful game design and artistry. None of that is present in APB Reloaded. Visually, the game is terrible. Performance-wise, the game is downright awful. Probably the worst I've experienced in any PC game in the history of games. I play on an i5 with 4 GB of RAM and a ATI 6970 2GB GPU. I blow the recommended specs out of the water on literally every game I play, with exception to my 4 GB of RAM. I play BF3 on max-ed settings. I've played Metro 2033 on max-ed settings. I've played Crysis on maximum settings. The one game I can't get consistently 60+ fps in? APB Reloaded. Why? Because the geniuses decided to build an MMO on the Unreal engine. They obviously didn't know the first thing about using the UDK because the game has ridiculous pop-in, DXT TEXTURE COMPRESSION IS OFF BY DEFAULT (Seriously!? No compressed textures by DEFAULT!?) and the game hogs my CPU more than anything I've ever touched outside of compiling video and maps. The game randomly freezes for 2-3 seconds, dropping my FPS to ZERO during that time. I've contacted support, read the steam forums, tried a gazillion different things, but nothing has fixed my issue and G1 never even replied to me. (A friend contacted them about changing the e-mail associated with his Realtime Worlds era account, and THREE MONTHS LATER, they replied to say, "We can't do that.") So essentially, I'm stating that Gamer's First is really 'Gamer's Money First, Support a Dead Last.' Load times are another horror. Hope you have SSDs, because this game takes a whopping 2:30 to load on my platter. This game is awful. High potential concept, but dreadfully bad execution. I don't recommend this game to anyone outside of the wealthy and sadistic.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.4Nov 8, 2011Great multiplayer game. Those are the two first words of the review because that's what I want to be taken from this. The singleplayerGreat multiplayer game. Those are the two first words of the review because that's what I want to be taken from this. The singleplayer experience is lackluster, it's marginally worse than the campaigns of the recent few Modern Warfare games. It's unbalanced in a few areas and tragically unoriginal. That being said, I didn't buy the game for the singleplayer. I don't usually play singleplayer games. The multiplayer is nothing short of amazing. Tons of vehicles, tons of guns, and at least 5 great maps. The other 4 maps range from terrible to "eh" in most situations I've encountered, but that's not the worst thing about this game. Now, how does this game actually look? The graphics are above and beyond what most games could even dream of achieving. It's the best looking game I think I've ever seen. I run the game on a High/Ultra combination of settings, and I get a fairly steady 60 fps. It's a pretty nice experience. But... this game can't receive a 10/10 for multiplayer alone. The singleplayer knocks it down a point, and the HORRIBLE GAME BREAKING BUGS that occur every now and then remove another point. Once they fix the game, it'll be a much more solid 9/10 experience, but until then the game must sit on an 8. It's a rewarding experience worth picking up. The battlelog system is nice once you get over your fears of internet browsers, and origin... well I forget it's even installed most of the time.… Expand
Average User Score: 2.4Nov 8, 2011This game is riddled with flaws and old game mechanics. Activision needs to learn that the key to keeping a game fresh is a new take on theThis game is riddled with flaws and old game mechanics. Activision needs to learn that the key to keeping a game fresh is a new take on the series. -Campaign-
Modern Warfare 3's campaign offers absolutely nothing to it's players over Modern Warfare 2, and certainly nothing over Call of Duty 4. It's an extremely shallow experience that consists of nothing but scripted sequences and corridors. It seems like there are more times you are riding in a vehicle blasting away at people in comparison to just walking around. It's more a movie than a game. Some twists are present, but the story isn't so good to begin with so the twists are inconsequential.
The only part of this game I consider playable. On one hand, it looks like they took a cue from Battlefield 3 - all of the weapons have an experience bar to fill. On the other hand, they didn't take much of a cue from anything else, there's no innovation with respect to actual gameplay. It's all familiar things seen in all of the other games except this time it's called Modern Warfare 3. No thanks, I'll stick to BF3 and Skyrim for my gaming needs for now.
Sad. They're still running the game on old technology, and the game still looks and feels like an old game. I don't want to play a game that looks like it came out in 2007 in 2011. It's sad that Activision won't shell out the cash to license a better game engine. That might actually, you know, take considerable effort on the parts of the developers that need to rehash old code to be able to release a game every single year.
- Map Design -
It's okay. The maps don't feel much improved from MW2 or it's DLC. I don't have a favorite because they all feel about the same quality-wise.
3/10. I would give it a 1/10, but I did enjoy a bit of multiplayer earlier. That's not to say that the score would improve with repeated playing, I'm just saying that there was something enjoyable about the game. Given that this is the FOURTH time Activision has released the same exact game, I guess that says something. The graphics are bad, the multiplayer is uninteresting, and again, there aren't REALLY dedicated servers. Do not buy this if you are a PC gamer, it's not meant for you. Buy it on your XBOX if you just HAVE to stay up and current with the most current gaming trends. Other than that, if you didn't like the Call of Duty series up until now, you aren't going to start with this game. It's not innovative in any way.… Expand