Yeah, you know what this is all about, so let's just jump right into
it. No need for preliminaries or intros. We'll just go straight to the
list of games. I won't be beating around the bush, no sir. I'll just
be talking about the games. It would be pointless to do otherwise. A
long paragraph describing this thread is unnecessary at this point.
Everyone knows what this thread is for. I can just start listing the
games and leave it at that. And that's what I'm going to do. Yes sir.
Any minute now. I'm not the sort to drag things out unnecessarily;
nope, not me. I'm renowned for my terseness and ability to get right
to the point. When I say I'm going to get right to it, then you know
that I'm going to
<gunshot>
//We apologize for the inconvenience. The people responsible for the
intro have been.... "sacked", let's say. Now, on to the games (for
real this time!)//
Look Mum, A List!
------------------------------
* Terminator: Resistance - The DLC (new)
* Transformers: War for Cybertron (replay)
* Transformers: Fall of Cybertron (replay)
* Metro Exodus (replay)
* Doom Eternal (replay)
* Generation Zero (new)
* Master of Magic (replay)
I'm Just Ramblin' for the Sake of Ramblin' ---------------------------------------
* Terminator: Resistance - The DLC (new)
While reviewing the base game, I commented that "Terminator:
Resistance" suffered from a number of apparent and often frustrating
flaws. It was an obvious B-tier game created by a B-tier developer. So
of course the obvious next step was to buy the DLC expansions.
Wait... what? Well, I never made claims about having any willpower (or
wisdom) when it came to game purchases. Plus, I did add the caveat
that the game was a fun experience for fans of the "Terminator"
franchise, and I definitely include myself in that bunch. So, whatever
it implies about me, I don't regret purchasing the original game /or/
its DLC.
Still, I will be the first to admit that the expansions suffer most of
the same flaws of the base game. Its visuals are undeniably
last-generation. Its FOV is too close and there's no option to widen
it. Its enemies are spongey. Its stealth mechanic is iffy. It is not a
standout game in any positive sense. Nonetheless, there have been some improvements.
Mostly, this is with regards to the level design. Whereas the first
game tried to overwhelm the player with its large, rambling maps, the "Apocalypse Line" expansion is more focused. The levels tend to be
smaller and progress more dependent on scripted situations rather than
aimless wandering. This does remove some agency from the player but
makes for a better narrative and less pointless and repetitive combat.
The improved map design also helps alleviate some of the frustration
with the stealth, since enemy encounters are less random and
hidey-holes are better placed. There's only one real boss fight, and
it is suitably placed at the climax of the DLC. The voice-acting is
also less toneless and you can almost make out some emotion and effort
from the actors. All in all, the whole package has a more polished
feel as the developers become more comfortable with their chosen
tools.
The game also has a second DLC - the "Infiltration mode - which is
much more limited in scope. It has the player take on the role of the
eponymous Terminator as he scours the wasteland for verminous humans
to kill. The level design hearkens back to the base game; it is a
large (possibly procedurally generated?) map that lacks character and
any notable high points, but neither are there any significant
problems. The gameplay returns to the base game's directionless
wandering, but since the entire expansion is intended to be played in
less than an hour it feels much less repetitive than the original. The
gameplay is much more straightforward; the Terminator lacks the
ability to climb or sneak, and tanking damage throughout a firefight
is a perfectly valid strategy. It is canonically suitable too, and
stalking the terrified survivors as they futilely plink away at your
health is an awesome power-fantasy. The best part of the DLC is
invading enemy bases; an in-game prompt offers the option to burst
open a door, at which point the game temporarily switches to
slow-motion bullet time as you methodically take out the puny humans
within.
Still, even at its best the game remains a second-tier experience. It
is a love-letter to fans of the franchise (the "Apocalypse Line" DLC
even recreates several scenes from the original movie) but it is a
hard sell for non-fans simply looking for a solid FPS experience.
* Transformers: War for Cybertron (replay)
Speaking of which...
I've said it before: this game is made for the fans. It gives them
almost everything a devotee of the Transformers franchise could want:
giant robots fighting an eternal war of good vs. evil on a
neon-drenched alien cyber-world, complete with the original soundtrack
and many of the original voice-actors reprising their most famous
roles.
But for anyone else? The game is a disappointing and lackluster
experience. Strip away the license - and all the nostalgia it induces
- and the game is tedious and anything /but/ entertaining.
Not that the developers don't try. The visuals are - on a technical
front - quite impressive; everything in the game is in constant
motion. Panels shift, weird devices do... weird things, and there are explosions everywhere. There's not a moment where something isn't
happening on screen (actually, it is a bit exhausting). But at the
same time, everything is in a color palette dominated by greys, and
it's hard to actually make out what you're seeing. The too-close field-of-vision doesn't help either; there was a constant sense of claustrophobia even in the wide-open areas. I never felt like I was
visiting an alien world; rather, I always had the sense of being in a
narrow, colorless corridor... even when I was in the depths of space.
Similarly, the combat was a sluggish experience. Everything in the
game felt slow - the robots moved and turned as if in molasses, even
when transformed into jets and rocket-cars. Each individual firefight
seemed to last forever, not helped by guns that languorously plink-plink-plinked away at the enemies health (and a corresponding
lack of reloads). More than once I ran out of bullets (or whatever it
is space-robots use in their space-guns) and had to run around in
circles waiting for the AI to take out flying targets I had no way of
reaching.
There just was no excitement to the game. The story was suitably epic
and the over-the-top acting of Peter Cullen, Frank Welker and the rest
did their best to ramp up the emotional impact, but the sheer alieness
of the world and the unexciting mission objectives (largely comprising
of wandering through tunnels to push a button to open a door... to
even more tunnels) killed the narrative pacing. It's fortunate the
game only lasted six hours, because I'm not sure I could have
tolerated more.
As a fan, I still get a thrill seeing Cybertronians duke it out
on-screen, and got some enjoyment from the narrative. I just wish the
game that encompassed it were more engaging.
* Transformers: Fall of Cybertron (replay)
(I /really/ wanted to just write 'ditto' as a funny one-word for this
game, indicating it was more of what we saw in "War for Cybertron",
but that would be both dishonest and inaccurate, so you'll have to
suffer through one of my wordy diatribes instead)
Aside from all the obvious and superficial similarities between the
two games, there's one major constant that connects both "Fall of
Cybertron" and it's predecessor, "War for Cybertron": they are both
games made primarily for fans of the original TV show more than they
are made to satisfy any gaming itch. "Fall" is undeniably the better
game of the two, but as far as its gameplay goes it at best achieves mediocrity. If giant robots and 80s cliches aren't your thing, "Fall"
is going to be an unsatisfying experience.
Fortunately, I love both of those things, and found "Fall" a far more satisfying experience than its prequel. The visuals are far more
engrossing; gone are the levels of purely grey and violet; there is a
much wider spread of colors used in this game. The levels are more
open too and less labyrinthine. The topography remains a bit of a mess
- it's still not always entirely clear how one arena connects to the
next - but the world has a more holistic feel to it. There's a lot
more apparent variety too; the Insecticon-filled underground looks
distinct from the ruined city-scape of Iacon which itself looks
different from the golden corridors of the Autobot's Ark. This greatly
improves the feeling of progression, both with regards to the gameplay
and narrative.
The combat is greatly improved too. The robots have more agility and
speed, while still retaining a sense of weight. It is still a far cry
from a Quake-style arena shooter - the characters clomp around like
armored elephants - but the controls feel a lot more responsive than
in "War". The weapons have been amped up too; fully upgraded (because
of course the developers had to add a weapon upgrade system; you can't
have a modern FPS with some sort of upgrades), guns can one-shot most
enemies. Ammo remains a bit on the scarce side, and scampering around
the arena looking for a reload pickup remains a frustrating part of
the game, but the experience is generally a lot more fun this time
around. Oh, and it helps that the enemies actually have pain
animations this time.
Other than that, the game remains fairly similar to "War in
Cybertron". It's story is brash and loud, ridiculous in its extremes
but wonderfully nostalgic and well-told with excellent (and suitably
hammy) voice-acting. I mean, the whole thing is as stupid as a game
based on toys and cartoon show can be, but even in its darkest moments
it is light-hearted and retains its innocence. It did get to be a bit
much near the end, but that's probably because I played this game
directly after playing "War"; twelve hours of watching Cybertronians
shoot at each other would probably try the patience of even a ten-year
old, much less somebody... slightly older... like myself.
Still, even though I quite enjoyed my time with the game, I can't
easily recommend it to non-fans. Outside of its nostalgic value, there
just isn't enough that makes this game special or worth playing. It's
fun... but not for everyone.
* Metro Exodus (replay)
I so want to like this game.
And I should; I really should. I loved the previous two games in the
franchise. I liked "STALKER", which has a similar theme and shared
developers with "Metro: Exodus". Why don't I like this game?
I can see what the developers were going for. The previous two "Metro"
titles were well received by critics, but many players wished it were
more like STALKER. They wanted a more open-world experience; "Metro
2033" and "Metro Last Light" were too scripted, too linear, they said.
"Metro: Exodus" is obviously a reaction to this criticism; it features
a number of wide-open maps reminiscent of GSC's beloved classic.
But the "Metro" gameplay and style doesn't match up with the sandbox
openness of the STALKER games. The AI is far too scripted and
reactive. The guns are better suited for close-range combat (and so is
the narrow FOV). The Zone around Chernobyl was chock full of
explorable nooks and hidden goodies. The inventory system was far more
robust. There was greater variety in weapons, equipment, and monsters.
There was just /more/ to the game than Metro's limited style offered.
With the Metro games, the narrative and atmosphere are far more
important to the game... and this gels poorly with the open world
segments. The best parts of "Metro Exodus" is when it abandons its
pretensions of its open world and locks you into narrow, crumbling
ruins: linear enough that the game can carefully direct the pacing,
but still with enough side corridors to allow some opportunity for
exploration. That's when its scripted sequences work best; that's when
you feel the tension ratchet up. Outside, the world seems lifeless in comparison; there's not enough depth. It becomes a dull exploration of uninteresting ruins facing off against predictable enemies.
But even those linear sections are often disappointing. Too often they
are simple corridor runs with almost no opportunity to explore, making
it feel as if the player has no agency. The earlier games in the
franchise found a balance between the extremes; "Exodus" too often
fails at the same task.
Nor did I find the story or characters engaging. It's typical Russian
fatalism seemed nothing more than simplistic platitudes spoken by
stereotypical characters; as much as the game wanted me to care about
the heroes and his allies, I instead found them hollow mannequins. (It
might be also that, due to current politics, I have a bit less
tolerance for Russian suffering). But the world lacked the depth and
sense of reality that carried the earlier games. I had no attachment
to any of it.
"Metro: Exodus" feels like a game that has lost its way. It's not
satisfying to people who enjoyed the style of the earlier Metro games.
It certainly isn't going to convince STALKER fans; Exodus's open world
gameplay is inferior to the 2007 game's experience. It's big and messy
and directionless, and as much as I tried, I couldn't feel anything
but exhaustion from playing it.
* Doom Eternal (replay)
I mean... it's fun. I'm not sure what else I should say about this
game. It's a good game. Great? I dunno if I'd go that far, but then
it's all subjective, isn't it? If you really can get into "Doom
Eternal's" non-stop bloodbath of fast-paced combat, it's probably
great. For me, it was just good.
It says something, I'm sure, that I found a lot more to appreciate
about the story. It's Doom after all; who cares about the story? And
the narrative in "Doom Eternal" certainly isn't the most sophisticated
tale, but considering its bareboned origins, I think the developers
did a bang-up job fleshing out the world. Nobody ever really asked for
an explanation, but now we know why there are cyborged demons
wandering around in Hell. What can I say; I like knowing stuff like
that. "Doom Eternal" scratched an itch I didn't even know I had.
I liked the game's artistry too. The tech behind the game may not be top-of-the-line (and let me tell you, it feels really weird saying
that about an Id game!) but the modelers, level-designers and
texture-artists really put their hearts into their work. The animation
of the Doomslayer alone is worthy of award (without speaking a word,
his menacing walk speaks novels about his implacability). It's a shame
the game pushes you to rush through the maps, because there's really a
lot of exceptional detail into their work. I had to make it a point to
slow down and appreciate the effort, but it was worth it. Looking at
all the stained-glass windows in the Doomslayer's flying citadel
probably consumed twenty minutes of my life alone, and I don't regret
a minute of it.
But the rest? Yeah, it's fun. Mindless, sure. A bit repetitive, okay.
But it nailed its combat loop - far better than "Doom (2016)" did, at
least as far as I'm concerned. The guns were beefier, and the addition
of aerial maneuvering (double-jumps, swings, climbing) added an extra
dimension (literally!) to the fights. It's hard not to be impressed by
a game that let's you bounce off a jump pad, do a 180, pop a demon's
head with a scoped-shot, then slam into the ground to super-punch
another foe into gratuitous gibs. It's ridiculously frenetic and even
if it's not my favored style of combat (I like a slower-paced, more
considered fight), I can't help but be impressed by the style of it
all.
"Doom Eternal" will never rank up amongst my favorite FPS games. It's
never going to be one of those games I have to play over and over
again. When discussing the genre with others, I'm not sure I'll even
remember to mention it amongst the hundreds of other titles I could
talk about. But sure, it's fun. I won't deny that.
* Generation Zero (new)
(I posted my impressions on this game five days ago so I won't make
you re-read them here, even though nobody actually commented on that
post and don't think I didn't notice and shed a few tears at all that
wasted effort. Usenet can be so cruel! So instead, in the name of
brevity, I offer the following:)
An obviously-Indie game with some pretty visuals, great atmosphere and
a solid gameplay loop that suffers from a lot of niggling flaws, not
least of which is a lack of content. It feels like an early access
game where the developers are still trying to figure out what works
and what doesn't before they actually start the hard work of finishing
up the game.
(There, are you happy? Now you don't have to read my longer review,
the one I poured my heart and soul into and that you all ignored, you
heartless monsters! ;-)
* Master of Magic (replay)
(perhaps not a surprise, given recent posts)
I didn't intend to play this game. It's not my favorite of
Microprose's strategy titles, being too derivative of its other
products, and - push come to shove - I'd rather play the originals
than the mutant-hybrid-combination that is "Master of Magic". It's not
that it's a bad game - quite the opposite - but I tend to prefer the
purity of the originals.
Still, by one means or the other, "Master of Magic" sat there on my
desktop, patiently waiting in a DOSBox window and before I knew it, I
was building up my cities, sending out units to explore, and
researching spells. I'd often described the game as "Civilization"
crossed with "Master of Magic" but it's probably closer to say it is
"Heroes of Might and Magic" using the "Civilization" tileset. It
doesn't feel as feature-complete or polished as either of its
originators, though. It didn't have the variety of monsters of the
former, for instance, and its city-building felt shallow compared to
the Civ-games. I think the spell mechanics were supposed to be the
final piece to the puzzle, but between the limited mana pool and
clumsy casting mechanics, I used magic far less than might be expected
from a game that has it in its title.
None of which should imply I don't think the game is a solid
4X-strategy experience; it very much is. It's just not the strongest
of Microprose's efforts. But it's still head-and-shoulders above most
of its competitors (even modern ones), which is a pretty good legacy
for a 28-year old game.
---------------------------------------
Yeah, so, that's it for me. A bit long-winded this time, me? Never.
Concise and to the point as always. In fact, I remember when
<another gunshot>
Uh, right. Um, so...
What Have You Been Playing... IN SEPTEMBER 2022?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)