Average User Score: 7.8Mar 19, 2013Dishonored feels like a game that inherits 75% of its history from Thief and 25% from a mix of System Shock/Bio Shock games. As such itsDishonored feels like a game that inherits 75% of its history from Thief and 25% from a mix of System Shock/Bio Shock games. As such its certainly a first person game, and you can shoot guns but I would personally not call it a "first person shooter'.
I almost didn't buy this game based off of some reviews, but I took a chance and I was well rewarded. Much of the depth of this game comes from playing it the way you want your character to work and how you want the end game outcome to be influenced.
If you are simply playing the game to beat each level as fast as possible the game will certainly feel short. You can hit the primary objectives in quite a few levels relatively quickly. Mow down a few guards with your guns and knives and complete the objective next level up.
If however you want to play a more stealthily game and play towards certain goals; like no one being alerted/alarmed during a level or completing a level with minimal (or perhaps no) deaths you can do that as well. This may require you to take the rooftop route, and find a secret back balcony entrance to the building instead of a front door but the designers will reward this alternate route taking with story interjections that you would otherwise miss, extra loot, and some times even side-quests.
Whichever route you take you can upgrade your character similar to system shock bio shock with steampunk like upgrades to your characters abilities and equipment. Want to stabilize your cross bow and improve its range and damage? No problem. Want to be more stealthy and have bodies dissapear in a puff of smoke to leave no trail for your enemies to discover? Earn enough points and these skills will be yours.
My personal feeling is Dishonored is a top notch game for what it wants to be: a worthy fusion sucessor to the Thief/Bio Shock genre.
For those people looking only for a run and gun shooter it is going to feel a bit of a disappointment. Some of those players may make the switch in mentality early in the game and find themselves having fun anyways. Otherwise if you dislike anything that doesn't focus purely on action you might pass this up or wait until its on sale so you don't feel cheated.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.8Sep 9, 2012CS: GO ; Ultimately its lack of any ambition at all makes this a disappointing upgrade after waiting for so long however it does stay true toCS: GO ; Ultimately its lack of any ambition at all makes this a disappointing upgrade after waiting for so long however it does stay true to the Counter Strike formula - perhaps too true!
CS: GO is a small fine tuning release - its clear they had a mission of taking the Counter Strike 1.6 formula and making it look a little bit better than CS: Source. Largely this is true although I have yet to be in a game where player's did not make fun of the "mushroom head" looking counter terrorist hats (who signed off on THAT decision?)
But the over all level design quality, the lighting, the HDR effects, the model details, gun details are one notch better than CS: Source ; and I do mean ONE notch. And this speaks to the primary reason this reviewer doesn't score CS: GO higher than a 6 ; for a company as large as Valve and as popular of an online game as Counter Strike is ; to shoot for the floor for this upgrade is not impressive.
Gameplay in Counter Strike is largely enshrined by the online community and the competitive community as well. However this doesn't mean that many online FPS game's haven't made clear that certain improvements are necessary for balance.
In Counter Strike the team that wins the first match is often likely to win the majority (and some times all) of the remaining matches due to their demanding cash lead in the second round. The cash system which was once innovative is now punishing. Other shooters present leveling system present more persistent systems where the player can advance and earn better gear and weapons that allow the player to not be instantly dominated because the other team was able to afford AWP's across the board in the second or third round! This out dated model from the 90's would have been an extremely welcome upgrade but was utterly ignored (yet again). Players will have to either mod their own play mode or wait another decade for Valve to drink from the clue cup on this one.
Similarly long over due for review was the gun balance and "realism" (note the quotes around realism) of the combat model in Counter Strike.
I can not count the number of times players have done a jumping AWP head shot either on me, or while I watched a team mate do it to the other side.
The incredible over-powered one-shot instant kill power of this weapon should have been much more carefully tempered with a little bit of realism. Any player running or jumping should be given no chance at all to hit their target with a sniper rifle, and greatly reduced chances with reduced damage when walking. Other guns suffer from an array of problems from too wide of a spread (even when crouched) to too narrow and precise of a spread in all forms (AK-47 for example). With varying ranges of damage problems such as I shot a terrorist in the back with the FAMAS 5 times to have him turn around and head shot me with a Desert Eagle!
Counter Strike: Global Offensive was an opportunity to raise the bar for skilled gameplay in a team environment. Instead a minor graphic overhaul is supposed to satisfy us for 10 more years.
Thankfully the entry price was low enough it is still probably worth purchasing unless you are really enjoying your current version of COD then really this game's lack of maturity and modern balance leaves it desiring a lot more attention and may be worth skipping.… Expand