Average User Score: 7.8Feb 20, 2012Rindokisuto is somewhat correct when he says this game doesn't change much. The buildings are mostly the same and the gameplay mechanics haven't changed. However, the graphics are a bit better and it doesn't take a top-of-the-line PC to get everything maxed. My PC was about $1000 for the main components (CPU, GPU, mobo, ram, harddrive) when I built it 4 years ago and I can max everything and have a flawless framerate.
The game does make improvements though, the base of the game is still great and it is asinine for anyone to rate this lower than a 5. Some changes include a more storyline-based campaign. There are not cutscenes or anything, but each island is placed within an overarching vision in the backstory. Also, there are unique events that occur that mix things up more, like feuds between the Communists and Capitalists or specific islands that are, for example, especially rebellious and resistant to rulership with their own unique native characters.
If you beat Tropico 3, don't bother with this game- unless you're extremely into the series like myself. There are plenty of other, more unique games out there to experience. However, if you've never played a Tropico game before, this is the one to play. This game would be rated an 8 for people new to the series, a 5 for people who've beat Tropico 3.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.4Oct 18, 2010Its hard to review this game because its really two very different games. The multiplayer game gets 10/10 for me. I tried the beta demo and was hooked- EA knew what they were doing! However, the single player is **** awful. I played 30 minutes of it and got bored. Its extremely linear and simple. Tactics aren't needed. You run to a place, see 5 Al Quada members scramble to cover- you can kill 3 of them while they're running around- and you pick of their heads in another 2 seconds. Rinse. Repeat. Its like a sub-par Playstation 2 shooter, or Time Crisis 2 (without the fun). There's no puzzles, no strategy, no novelty, it really feels like a weak shooter from 2002. For some odd reason the graphics are not as good as the multiplayer. SP graphics are a little bland. Single player feels like it only exists to give context to the multiplayer maps. SP is basically all the multiplayer maps chained together with some more streets in between and some cutscenes (the only part of SP I liked were the cutscenes).
The multiplayer is an entirely different game. Everything about it rocks. The sound design, the graphics, the gameplay... This game is mostly about finding cover and good vantage points, killing enemies and waiting for a chance to advance. Cover fire from teamates is very valuable- and the game rewards it. Each kill gets you XP points, you get extra for headshots, savior kills, revenge kills, destroying vehicles, coordinating attacks and a few other things. XP gained with each class unlocks new weapons and weapon tweaks for that class only. You aren't allowed to choose what upgrade you can get like Battlefield games, but that doesn't bother me.
I've only played COD for 2 minutes- I quit after a 7-year-old screamed **** at me (that sums up what I think of COD and Halo). However, I've always been a fan of Battlefield (2 and 2142, but I've never played Modern Warfare). MOH seems to improve on the class systems of the BF games- nobody is stuck being a medic (the health system is exactly like Gears of War- when you get hit you start seeing red and blood spatter on the edge of the screen. get to cover and you heal in 5 seconds or so, but it doesn't take much to kill someone). Also, nobody is forced to sit around and play commander. Scorechains give access to mortar/missile strikes and radar sweeps. I think this is how COD works too (maybe?). And permanent ammo boxes are spread around the map (for some game types).
Its hard to think of any problems with MP. There have been some servers where you get stuck on a terrible team, and there is no team balance, but this is easily remedied (ragequit). I've only gotten about a 1/5 of the way up the weapon unlock thing, but it seems like I'll probably have everything unlocked after maybe only 20 hours of gameplay (roughly estimating). I remember unlocking weapons in BF2 or 2142 was a huge deal since it only came once in such a long time. Then again, with MOH unlocking everything is within everyone's grasp and not just for those who play 10 hours a day.
Overall, I have to give this game a 7. A great multiplayer game alone is worth $40-45, but this game cost $60, and at 60 I expect at least a good single player experience. Rated separately, the MP is 10/10, the SP 4/10.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.8Oct 13, 2010FIFA 11 is horrible. I have a 1680x1050 screen, but for some reason the picture is squeezed horizontally causing everyone to look skinny and tall, and there are black bars on the sides. On top of that, you can't adjust any video settings whatsoever- not even the resolution. And the graphics for this game are awful. Somehow EA has been making every FIFA game for the PC progressively poorer and uglier. I'm not sure when the best FIFA game was for the PC, I think it might've been 06. The graphics look playstation 2 quality, blurry textures, no AA, no vertex or pixel shading, etc. Download this game if you MUST play it, but this game isn't worth $0.01. Its an insult that they sell it for $50 at best buy.
The only reason I downloaded it is because i have several xbox 360 controllers for my pc, and only FIFA and a few other sports games have multiplayer on one PC- like every console game has.… Expand