Average User Score: 7.6May 31, 2013I was slow to really like Sanctum 2, but after playing it for awhile, I have come to really warm up. At first multiplayer was crap because only 1 person would have resources. This has since been fixed. Thought many players are still bad at the game, it is much better than it was at release. Recommend people who left the game to try it again.
Graphics are phenomenal. Beautiful. Impressive environments. Lots of secrets that make it satisfying for me.
Combat is satisfying and the creatures' ability to fight back seems to be a nice change to the game (IMO).
Nice variety of towers. Nice effects from them as well. Maps have a big variety as well.
Biggest negative is that I don't know how replayable the game will be after you've beaten everything. So far, however, I've loved it for the majority of the time. Some maps are dreadful mostly maps that do not allow you to maze; though most maps do.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.9May 31, 2013StarDrive is a 4x strategy game that I have beta tested and played a few mods on top of that. Here is a summary of what I have noted:
+Customization is amazing. You design everything in regards to your ships.
+Galaxies can be gigantic or small depending on your preference. Combat in empty space (away from solar systems) is rare in a 4x.
+Direct control and massive fleets. Direction and speed are a factor and you can take control of a single ship even while a massive fleet follows behind your flagship.
+AI acts like a unique race. Certain races are cowardly, others will betray you in a heartbeat, others are focused on honor and will declare war on you if you are caught using a spy network.
+AI uses custom designs. As someone who has designed AI before, I find this incredibly badass.
+Game favors modability. This insures that the game will continue to improve.
-Late game is slow. AI will not surrender even after you have beat them into the dirt (even if you have 1000 ships and they have none).
-Bugs. Orders reset after you load a saved game. Some systems slow down in the late game. Game crashes.
-Default ship designs are inefficient, making initial AI weak.
-No multiplayer. Would love this. Unfortunately, the developer has stated no intention of adding multiplayer without selling it as some sort of DLC.
-Planet management is limited in comparison to most other 4x (such as Hegemonia or Endless Space, from my experience). This is more obvious the longer you play the game. After awhile planetary management becomes a choir that must be completed before the awesome space battles can take place.
Overall, I recommend it. Especially if it goes on sale. If it had multiplayer or good planet management, I would love it. As is, it shows promise but I don't find myself wanting to keep playing after beating the game once.… Expand
Average User Score: 5.8Dec 6, 2012War of the Roses has some beautiful graphics and awesome customization, both of equipment and cosmetics. The process of unlocking both is also quite interesting. Unfortunately, this is the best that I can say for this game. While I found archery to be satisfying in this medieval game, melee feels incredibly floaty and I oftentimes do not know why I insta-kill somebody even after hours of playing; things just do not connect sometimes and I have found that that attack spammers with heavy armor often win the melee field. For a medieval game focused on melee combat, you are going to be frustrated when fully charged attacks to an opponents head do no damage when it appears perfectly aimed and timed. Once you learn the power of heavy armor, not wearing it is more of a challenge than a trade-off. Then there is the fact that not that many people play this now. On top of this, the number of play modes are limited. Conquest and Team DM are basically what you are looking at, plus a DM with no respawns even fewer people play. In short: it is a limited experience and everything that it does, I feel other games have done better: Chivalry, in melee, and Mount & Blade, in horse and game modes. It's a 5, in my opinion, because it is average and Mount & Blade -- an older game -- outperforms it, even though WOR looks nice.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.4Oct 3, 2012Hell Yeah! is appropriately named because that is exactly the response you are going to have after playing about ten minutes of this game. Though it is a platformer and that is usually not my thing, this game had me sucked in for hours before I realized what time it was and had to log off to go to work.
If you haven't seen it, check out Totalbiscuit's WTF to see an example of the awesome graphic style and dark humor that kept me laughing still 3 hours in. Addictive, fast-paced, with a killer rabbit and an art style that intensifies the humor, this is perhaps the only platformer I would recommend at $15 today.
My complaints for this game is that the UI does not work well for mouses with more than 3 buttons (which can be overlooked by not using the other buttons) and that the weapon switch system forces you to go through multiple weapons to find the one you want, which can be irritating in a fast-paced game like this. ******
Those detractors, however, do not outweigh the fact that this game is in many way simply bad ass.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.8Dec 23, 2011Now that the game is less than $20, it is exactly where it needs to be: a perfect game for a cheap price. The single player campaign is short, but it is one of those games where it is so good and you are so engrossed in it that you are disappointed when it ends. Valve spent a lot of time on this game, and you can tell. This is a marvelous improvement from Portal I, both graphically and in the complexity of the puzzles. Oftentimes I would be bashing my head up against the wall trying to pull off complex stunts like in Portal I, when the solution would be much less about reflexes and much more about strategy. Not to mention that the storyline and voice acting are top notch. This is a game that is nearly literature in its depth, where you will actually feel emotionally moved and interested in the backstory and in the characters. However I was moved by GLADOS in the first Portal, the sequel expands this greatly. Really, if I was ever going to complain it would have been to say that $50 + DLC costs is a high price to pay for such a short experience, but now that it is cheaper I would say that this is the perfect experience for the perfect price.… Expand
Average User Score: 5.8Dec 23, 2011I'll state upfront that this game is not good enough to charge a $15/ month fee. NO game is -- period. If a company needs long term revenue then there are other ways to get that without mandatory fees. Valve has shown this with their store, and then there are the DLCs that Bethesda has used. Both of these methods are annoying, but they do not detract from a game. The fact that you can lose your account and all data attached to it if you cease paying for it is, by contrast, a live issue for any game. _____ My soap box aside, this is an extremely fun game that -- at least in terms of storyline -- does something that other MMOs do not: allow multiple players to determine the course of a story by taking a vote of what action to take. The lightside/ darkside choices and dialogue should be familiar to KOTOR fans, and TOR has expanded this to the multiplayer. Now, what I have trouble with is the wait times during Instances (that is to say those areas where multiple players go together and determine the course of the story during an event). If a player is lagging behind -- looting and so forth -- then you will have to wait on that person to catch up before you can move on. There is no skipping waiting for that person, and so this can destroy your experience. Bioware could have allowed the player to forgo their part in the story, or just teleport them to their team to cut the annoyance on the press of a button, but no. And I'm not even going to go into teamwork, any online gamer should know matching yourself with random people will make that stitchy. It's just all the sitting, and the waiting, that ruins the experience. This is true for all the minor snatch-and-grab quests that are annoying, even when you are by yourself. How I want the ability to "fast travel" like on Oblivion or Skyrim (and I'm not trolling, but seriously -- why can't a different company use that system to cut down unnecessary travel time). It is not as if they are trying to make Star Wars realistic.... _____ But within these things is the sandbox experience, and the cool, novel features that have yet to be ironed out. When they are the story portion will be vastly improved. The writing itself is still Bioware quality, even though I've found character responses to often be repetitive this is to be expected with a work so massive as this. Combat matches the KOTOR/ WOW style that everyone is talking about, so I'm not going to go into that. I will just say that it stays true to KOTOR enough that I'm not complaining, though the fact that you have to go to a "Trainer" instead of acquring abilities "through the Force," as was explained in the previous KOTOR makes leveling annoying at times and -- in addition -- questions the validity of those previous Star Wars games. Does a Jedi acquire his abilities through practice and from force within, as KOTOR implied? Or does he/she need a master to acquire these abilities, as TOR is now suggesting? I'm not going to force the fact that it makes TOR unnecessarily like WOW in this respect. Finding and paying trainers are a hassle. Nothing that would block a player from getting an "unfair advantage," they are simply an annoyance: why doesn't Bioware make you file an income tax in the game every year while they are at it? Furthermore, it disturbs the lore of Star Wars. Since Dark Forces II there has been both lore that a person gains abilities through experience (which makes sense) but this must first be instigated after learning the basics from a master or other teaching source (also makes sense). Why is TOR suddenly violating this lore? For "game balance?" It just seems like an unnecessary kick in the crotch. _____ In summary, this is a good game but it still has quirks which need to be resolved. If these were resolved, then you're looking at a fantastic game. If Bioware would stop playing the role of King John, like Blizzard, and stop levying a game tax, then you are looking at a 10. Though, really, it would probably be like a 94% due to the graphical glitches and the general look which is outdated. But graphics are forgivable. As are the timing quirks and slow pacing. But a slow game that charges $15/month?... NO. Now if you are rich and have too much time on your hands: this is a game for you.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.5Dec 23, 2011What I have to say about this game is that it is mediocre, and this -- after its fantastic predecessor, Earth 2150, is a serious let down for previous fans. What I laugh about is apparently the only people who bought this game did so through steam; I did not. I'm one of the true originals who was excited about a sequel for one of my favorite strategies of all time. Therefore: my rating has nothing to do with technicals. My reviews never do. It is about a much more crucial facet: the content of the game itself. _____ Allow me to just summarize and say that there is nothing here that really separates 2160 from any other strategy. If you are looking at a new strategy to seek variety, then look elsewhere. Unlike 2150, you cannot really customize your units to be your own, unique design. Furthermore, the pacing is that of Starcraft II: that is to say clicking speed and reaction time is more important than strategy and tactics. And advancing technologically seems irritatingly unrewarding. You'll do it to keep the status quo, but don't expect to come out with some powerful tech that your enemy cannot counter with pure massive numbers. Most will say "so what," but the original did not play with this feature and the fact that they changed it to its current state of merely being a copy of other strategy games from the time. Though SCII was not around when 2160 came out, the experiences are very similar so expect 2160 to be a worse looking, less-balanced game with a practically dead community (what community?). As for the story -- which no one I've seen has mentioned -- is just terrible. Perhaps if you think the Sci-Fi channel movies have good storylines, then you'll like this... but really the story of this game is about like the sequel to Starship Troopers movie (not the book). That is to say a mediocre story with interesting points that suddenly was **** on and left harden in the sun. The story is more a soap now, with focus on personal relationships, than on politics and the cultures of the different factions. Once again, average in itself but terrible in respect to its predecessor. ______ Take this in stride. The game at least functions. There are at least groupings and defense, and so forth. The AI will kick your ass until you figure out its quircks. There is resource acquisition and technological advancement. But advancement will not get you victory unless one side has completely neglected advancing... But is any of this new? It makes me sad that its predecessor from many years before was vastly superior. It was unique and challenging; this one just seems to want to be a Blizzard game. But I say not all games need to be Blizzard games: there needs to be variety, and this game simply is not it. Some people care nothing about variety. Then, please, play this game: you will enjoy the monotony, I'm sure. _____ Perhaps this will sate those who have not played the game yet see fit to give a game a good rating due to not seeing a "reason" for a negative review. _____ Main negatives: -> Gameplay focused on reflex rather than strategy. -> Repetitive, lack of variety and customization of the predecessor. -> Poor, melodramatic storyline. -> Drops cultural and political complexity of predecessor. -> Lack of community. _____ Positive: +> It works. +> It's cheap (now). +> You can laugh at the bad writing. +> There is advancement and neat technologies (though they do not mean much, honestly, during gameplay).… Expand
Average User Score: 5.5Dec 10, 2011I need to do something with this game that I haven't done before: and that is reconsider my rating of a bad game. Originally I gave this game a 1. Which, on the basis of stealing Diablo I's game play, ambiance, and design, it deserves. For more than even Never Winter Nights I, it is obvious how much this game is "borrowing" from Blizzard's game, and that is something that simply annoys me. The lack of LAN play was something that made me immediately hate the game, because this is what I bought it for. But then I realized that this was an old hatred based on preconceived notions that were extremely disappointed. I wanted a new RPG, and it did not deliver. I wanted to play with my friends and my brother on a network, and I could not. _____ This game lacks variety. The bartering system lacks balance. Even the storyline is mediocre, at best. I had to replay the game recently to see this. And when I did, I saw that the game was actually fun to a degree. In this -- it is challenging. Which is more than I could say for Diablo except on Hell or Nightmare difficulty (in reference to DI, not DII which is a more advanced game and thus is on another level). I would never, however, recommend you to play it simply because it is repetitive. Extremely repetitive. There is SOME variety, granted. But it is Diablo I without the firewalls and lightning. It's lasers, which is neat until you realize the different abilities differ in color and damage but not in effect or actual physics. Mines and "CAMS" are there, but only depending on the race. Which, is really limited. And believe me, you are probably not going to enjoy this game enough to want to play through the exact same story twice. ____ I had fun playing this game when I was drunk. So based on that, I increase my score 1 point. I detract that it is the worst game I ever played, but I also detract that it had a good story. It is a sci-fi scrap book story really. I am not going to "spoil" it, however. How "Harbinger" is symbolized in so many ways in the game is in fact the coolest, and deepest thing about it. But this is where depth begins and ends, I am afraid. I recommend avoiding this game. However, if you come into contact with it I recommend buying it as an artifact due to its rarity, if it is cheap that is.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.8Dec 10, 2011This is in truth a very small expansion to the Rome: Total War experience. As people have mentioned, it makes a *slight* improvement on graphics. Judging from today, it is no match for Medieval II: Total War, and its expansion changed far more than Alexander does for Rome. ____ Those of you who felt the original Rome campaign a little too easy may be satisfied on this one, being that the AI has been considerably improved. They will attempt, when cost-effective, to flank you and put you in a pincer move. This, of course, can be countered but the very fact that the AI tries to put forth a resemblance of strategy makes the game more enjoyable. Then, of course, all the odds are against you as Alexander, with the Persian armies always grossly outnumbering you. ____ You may find the number of units in each faction quite disappointing, however. Alexander's force is composed of a force with less variety than the Macedonian army in Rome. This will disappoint many, and for good reason. Alexander's true army had more variety than this. Number one: the presence of ballistae and archers were an important part of Alexander's army, especially during sieges. This means that this game does not really placate to the realism it suggests and, what's more, as an expansion it is really cheap -- with retexturing units counting as adding something new. Add a new coat of paint to an old car, and it is still the same old car. This is what you get with Rome: Alexander. ____ Those who are dying for a Total War experience but who hate what has been done with the recent games will find this a satisfying addition to the good-ol'-days of Total War games. But I recommend buying it through Steam only when it's on sale to make it seem more worth it. I bought it for ~$2, for instance. But for $10? No, I would not recommend it. I consider this a good official mod of a great game.… Expand
Average User Score: 9.1Nov 30, 2011So far, this is the best realistic FPS that I have ever played. Whenever anyone speaks about a game being "realistic" I ask them if it is like Operation Flashpoint. 95% of the time, the answer to this question is "No." And this should tell you something about the gameplay experience between Op. Flashpoint and every other game you've played -- there is an enormous gap in difference. You cannot, nor should you try, to compare this game to something like COD or Halo, or even Counterstrike, except if it is to pick out a few minor points. Overall this game is a field of differences. The easiest comparison is with Battlefield, but you are then missing the most important element again: realism. _______ And as "field" of differences brings up: this is the primary difference in this game. Complete openness. We are talking several maps which all dwarf the maps of Oblivion, Morrowind, or Skyrim. To drive from one end to another takes about an hour. To walk... ha... just don't. Added to this is the fact that the map maker means that you can make any mission you desire and create your own AI using the patterns you desire: and I am a newb on all map designing and I made a ton of maps me and my friends played for years. ______ This game has realistic combat. Get shot once, you are probably dead. But it is massive so there is an enormous field for strategizing, plenty of places for cover, and several dozen vehicles (air and ground). Get shot in the legs and you will be crippled until a medic patches you up. Sniper rifles, machineguns, rocketlauncher, bayonets, shotguns, assault rifles, pistols... then you've got all the wonderful mods. And, you know what, I cannot say the AI on this game is half bad. Which is something that is important when you are ordering the bots around. ______ With all of this said, Op Flashpoint did NOT look good, even when it came out. It wasn't considered "bad," but it wasn't a beauty shop by any means. Now it just looks like vomit, and my biggest problem now is that it gives me a headache to look at for longer than a few minutes. Added on to that and there are still bugs even at patch version 1.91. Flying BMPs, dead guys who continue to perform animations... But no major stuff, just funny crap like that I have a suspicion they kept for the humor. There is issues like bleeding when you start drowning and an inability to swim that I find annoying. Plus going THROUGH bushes without any affect to the bushes themselves is kinda stupid -- it means a sniper in a perfect position will never ruffle the leaves. Which, of course, is good against all humans but the comp can see the difference. But lets face it, this is an older game before the days of Half-Life 2 when physics became important. ______ In short, this is a solid game. It is a classic and should be a part of the canon of anyone who dares give himself the title "PC Gamer." So far, I have yet to play a game that can match it's realism in so many ways: whether the freedom of space, the ability of tactics, the relationship to the terrain, the way the guns actually have damage and range fall-off. But as a word to the wise: only buy for the PC.… Expand