|By date||Most helpful reviews||By my score||By metascore||By user score|
Average User Score: 7.5Aug 4, 2011An interesting experiment, to say the least. This game is threading in an area where no other has before. RPG with anAn interesting experiment, to say the least. This game is threading in an area where no other has before. RPG with an modern-high-tech-espionage backdrop. I`m pretty sure that all the mixed reviews originate in people simply being confused. Compare it to, say DA:O, and it`s not exactly an RPGish. Compare it to better installments in Splinter Cell series, and, well you`ll be left wondering "what the hell am I playing? But the story? How it is put together? The sheer amount of interactivity it allows you? And the atmosphere on some levels? Wonderful gem I say, on par with other, older Obsidian`s work. Of course, there are certain problems with the game, and it could use more polish, definitely. But if you had just about enough of slightly nerdish RPGs made for teenagers (admit it, DA:O is one) or overblown, overambitious space-opera FPS-RPG hybrids like Mass Effect, this is the way to go. Something completely new. Try it.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.8Jul 22, 2011Campy, intelligent and very humourous dialogues. Long, but even if you are itching for action you`ll listen to every bit. And action? There`sCampy, intelligent and very humourous dialogues. Long, but even if you are itching for action you`ll listen to every bit. And action? There`s plenty of it. And all in "science fiction comedy horror" flavour that this DLC sells so well. Compared to Honest Hearts, you won`t find yourself bored as often. Compared to Dead Money you won`t be replaying some parts as often. And overall, this DLC can easily measure up to some of Fallout 3 DLCs that we enjoyed in soo much (Point Lookout, The Pitt)...
More return fo your invested time (and money), definitely.
"Merril4Life" - It`s sad when DLCs have to salvage the game taht could have been so much more. DA2 is NOT epic, awesome and intricate. Look towards DA:O for that. Not to mention that this page has absolutely nothing to do with Dragon age 2...… Expand
Average User Score: 8.2Oct 14, 2010Starcraft. A category for itself in game industry. Which can pretty much sum it up. But let`s start out methodically.
First things first. IStarcraft. A category for itself in game industry. Which can pretty much sum it up. But let`s start out methodically.
First things first. I will immediately come out front about my attitude towards Starcraft in general.
I don`t hate SC per se. The first game was good. Immersive, playable and sufficiently interesting to keep you playing for some time. In 1998. It had everything that good RTS needed. It had even more, what with different but perfectly balanced races and gameplay that required little time to get used to, but a lot to master. Story too was interesting, and since I had no idea what Wh 40k was back then, it had an air of genuine originality about it.
Starcraft 2 is both very similar and very different game. It`s immersive. Interesting missions that keep you on your toes. Inrteresting units too, and character interactions on the ship. But that`s where the list ends (for me anyway). For someone who played Starcraft a lot, but was not obsessed with it, the second installment didn`t at all stand out from the other games on the market in the way that the original did in `98. Why you ask? Well it`s a bit opened to interpretation, but I will represent my view of it.
Graphics... pretty good. Considering it`s an obsolete engine and all other jazz. No physics effects or changing the morphology of the terrain with hellish artillery barrages the likes of which we`ve seen in CoH (4 years ago, mind you). So no innovation, but still looks good. Is it demanding? Pretty much, which is ridiculous, really. Graphics IS NOT that good, nor are there that many units in the game at any given time for the game to drag its heels on a mainstream rig, 3 years old. And no physics, which usually taxes the computer to some extent. But still, you could say that designers achieved a lot with very little, using that old engine and somewhat cartoonish visual style in the game, because, to me, it was pleasing. Even unrealistic size comparisons between units (talking about realism in 26th century, heh...) are usually overseen, and that kind of stuff used to bother me even when Red Alert 2 came out some 10 years ago. Gameplay, mechanics, balance, and all that jazz... pretty good too. It`s the good `ol SC gameplay formula, refurbished with new units and some minor features. It works pretty good too, since you can find some use for all new and old units, even ones you are not used to, well, using. Balance... is fine. I will berate, the game`s insistence (especially in singleplayer), to force its own tempo upon you. There is barely a handful of missions where you can build your base and get things done at your own pace. I can understand the need for a bit of dynamic in the game, but in SC2 it feels a bit rushed, imposed upon you. True, I might be oldschool, laidback strategist, forged in the fires of old Steel Panthers and early C&C games, but I prefer not to be forced to act ALL THE TIME. They could at least mask it better, like, for example, Sins of Solar Empire does. You can build up slowly and not fight at all for hours. But then something happens and suddenly you have an epic clash of massive fleets, where distance of nearest shipyard and attrition often decides battles. Management. Control. Trying to be at dozen places at the same time and prevent things from falling apart. An ultimate strategic experience. Does SC2 with its small, skirmish-like battles and smartly conceived, albeit simple economy, feel like one?
Or Company of Heroes. I admit, there you have to do something ALL the time, or you wind up FUBAR. But its immersive, addictive. Attacking and counterattacking, cutting off supply lines, retreating to shorten your defenses and build up... And all that strategy comes wrapped up with brutal, visceral, and near-realistic display of WWII warfare. SC2? The fact that I detected how the game forces its tempo on me speaks plainly of how exactly... cheap the methods for achieving this are. Summing it up, gameplay has its ups and downs, but it`s good.
Story? Ahhhhhh for crying out loud, how many "the end times are nigh" rehashes the Blizzard has to do? I mean, the story is, in broad sense, very much like the one of Warcraft3. Not to mention other games that are running by the same "Armageddon" routine. Well, the characters can be interesting, but when Zeratul starts uncovering more, things get cheesy. Almost pathetic, really. I played a lot of games and watched a busload of movies (US, Japanese, Russian...) and I appreciate surprises. SC2 has none. You have interesting universe, so much potential for good story that keeps you guessing... but in the end, Blizzard achieved very, very little with very much.
And how the game reviewers gave positive reviews, not berating the lack of innovation (I remember how Red Alert 2 got neg points for it 10(!!!) years ago)... SC2 is put simply, a piece of that brown, smelly stuff
you see every day, wrapped up in silk. And it sells real, damn good. After 12 years. Go Blizzard, Yay!… Expand