129 replies to this topic

[GraphicX]

alien; colonial marines

now this game rated VERY poorly when it came out, but i picked it up for about $3 so gave it a good crack.

it was quite short (campaign), maybe 6-8 hours, but honestly any longer & i'd probably have gotten sick of it.

the graphics were nice, literally nothing wrong with them at all.

audio was excellent, love the sound of the guns in alien.

story held very true to the movies, it actually tied in with them & added before unseen stuff as it revisited the settlement from alien & aliens.  this made it really atmospheric & although the game was limited to either inside a ship, outside on the planet or inside of the settlement i never grew tired of the scenery.

as an fps game everything was there that's in all of them, but the alien universe made it that bit better for me.  i had a quick look in multiplayer (couldn't play) & the modes actually looked really good too.

rating it at the $3 i paid it'd have to be 9/10, personally i would've been unhappy paying say $80 for it, but for $3 it's a solid 9 for me.

[Axe99]

Great to hear you enjoyed it Graph .  While I agree it's a good game and enjoyable, you may possibly be the only person in this dimension that rates Aliens: Colonial Marines higher than The Witcher 2 .  That's not a bad thing, mind .

[GasClown]

Axe99, on 08 May 2015 - 11:26 PM, said:

you may possibly be the only person in this dimension that rates Aliens: Colonial Marines higher than The Witcher 2

lol

[GraphicX]

you're taking that out of context axe, at $3 i rated it a 9/10, that's comparing it basically to iOS type games.  witcher 2 i just rated as if i'd paid full price for it etc.

[GasClown]

I recently bought Witcher 2 for $2.99 - I hope it's even better now that it's a cheaper price... although I'm guessing the game will still be the same as it was when it was full price.

If we're adding 2 - 3 points to review scores when it's dirt cheap I'm guessing it should be an 11-12/10?

[Axe99]

GraphicX, on 09 May 2015 - 10:47 AM, said:

you're taking that out of context axe, at $3 i rated it a 9/10, that's comparing it basically to iOS type games.  witcher 2 i just rated as if i'd paid full price for it etc.

I wasn't being entirely serious either, just playing with numbers and ideas .  On the by, did you pay full price for Witcher 2?  If not, what would you rate it?  I see you beating down on CD Projekt Red .

[GraphicX]

i didn't pay anything for either of the witcher games, both gifted to me lol (hence why i like to gift games myself, what goes around comes around & all that).

[Axe99]

I know, I'm just teasin' - see, you rated A:CM easy because it cost you $3, but you rated Witcher 2 tough because it was nothing .  It's all good.

I feel I should review a game, after all these posts.  I've played a stack of Hearts of Iron 3 with all the expansions lately, like all strategy games, they're not really games you 'finish' per se, any more than you 'finish' chess, but I've got a fair handle on how it works.  It's pretty good, the systems in the game are solid, although air warfare is a bit fiddly and supply could have been done better (and is almost impossible to understand in terms of how it works within the game, which are its main detracting points, other than the AI).  The AI is significantly better than previous HoIs, or even HoI3 at release, but it still does some funny things that don't do it any favours.  Overall, I'd rate it as a 6/10, but fans of strategy and WW2 will get a fair bit out of it.  It does go into a fair bit of detail - you can actually have individual brigades running around if you want to (although generally divisions are the smallest unit on the map) - so if you're not looking for that level of detail, go for something like Strategic Command 2.

[GraphicX]

Axe99, on 10 May 2015 - 02:46 AM, said:

I know, I'm just teasin' - see, you rated A:CM easy because it cost you $3, but you rated Witcher 2 tough because it was nothing .  It's all good.

or it could be an under rated game i found to be great versus a hyped up/over rated game i found to be fairly good

[GraphicX]

ryse son of rome

well straight off the bat this game is fücking awesome !!!  yes, there have been many complaints that it's too short etc (main campaign about 6-8 hours), but it's a game you should replay (i'm currently trying legendary) & there's also hours upon hours of game play to be had in the gladiator mode (basically a horde mode in the coliseum but more structured).

the storyline is something that is either straight from a great movie, or should be turned into a great movie.  really interesting, well voice acted & well written.

combat is 80% the way there, think shadow of mordor kinda crossed with the fist fighting from uncharted (iirc).

scenery & graphics are simply awesome.  it's using the cryengine, so pretty much cutting edge, but the scenery & characters are so heavily detailed, the world reminds me at times of tomb raider, the armor often reminds me of dark souls 2, looks a real treat.

i'm giving it 9/10, only thing i'd like to have seen more of is probably variety in enemies & maybe some more scenes where you're in charge of your army (setting positions etc).  really would love to see a movie made out of it !

[GasClown]

GraphicX, on 20 June 2015 - 10:46 AM, said:

i'm giving it 9/10

Interesting - is that score for graphics alone?

[Hasan-I]

It seems to me that Graph likes shit games and doesn't like good games... Odd..

Don't get all butt hurt though..

[Axe99]

Cheers Graph, that had been well and truly off my 'to play' list, but I reckon I might grab it on the cheap in a Steam Sale at some stage and give it a play.  How intense is it (ie, does it have a 'baby' mode so I don't need to focus too much? )

[Aromaci]

Starting to wonder if I'll ever finish Witcher 3. I've put about 70hrs into it and I'm still in Act I. I'll have to get a wriggle on with the story or other games will take over.

[GasClown]

Aromaci, on 20 June 2015 - 11:22 PM, said:

Starting to wonder if I'll ever finish Witcher 3. I've put about 70hrs into it and I'm still in Act I. I'll have to get a wriggle on with the story or other games will take over.

Pffft... I only did some of that first section, haven't returned to it since. Got nothing to do with it being crap, I just can't sit there for 200 hours playing one game these days. I'm worried that'll happen with Fallout 4 as well.

[Hasan-I]

I feel exactly the same way Aro! It's the reason i am not planning on grabbing Fallout 4... there is no chance i will have the time to play it. And the rate that good games come out these days, doesn't help. For example; Batman is out next week, and i REALLY want to play that too.

[GraphicX]

@ gc; probs a good 9/10 for graphics, but still probably not as detailed as last of us which is still the most impressive detail-wise of any game i've played.

@ axe; even normal is a bit of a baby mode, check points everywhere, combat is click X, click Y kinda thing in timing, legendary is over the top hard though.

@ hasan; i tend to enjoy the less-hyped stuff, but mind you ryse was really hyped, but then tanked with reviews, but then delivered for me lol.  was mainly the storyline i was engaged in, could easily be a blockbuster movie.

[GasClown]

Hasan-I, on 21 June 2015 - 02:59 AM, said:

Batman is out next week

Holy smokes batman - it is too.

[motoboy76]

Can't wait for that one Clowny....

[Axe99]

Finished off the main story for Assassin's Creed: Unity yesterday (and a bunch of the side missions, but not all of them - there's a stack, not sure if I'll do them all, but plan to do a few more before I'm done with the game for good) and thought it was very enjoyable and well put together .  Which, given the initial reception it got, suggests it got some serious patching!  The story held up pretty well, and there were dedicated 'Assassination' missions, which were an improvement for the series - as was the 'press button to tell game whether you wanted to free run up or down'.  Traversal wasn't still perfect, there were more than a few moments when it felt like I was wrestling with the controls to get the Arno (the main character) to do what I'd like, but it was a step up on previous iterations of the game.  Generally speaking, the gameplay was 'similar but improved' on the past, and was as enjoyable as ever to me, but wouldn't be likely to bring over people that hadn't enjoyed later last-gen AC games.

I think their biggest mistake in game design was in the setting.  I personally really enjoyed the take on 18th century Paris, but the city itself as a setting is a bit limited in scope compared with most previous settings in the series.  Even the games that took place in Rome and Constantinople had greater variety in their settings, and definitely in their colouring, and coming after the likes of AC3 and Black Flag, it probably felt a bit limited to some (even though the actual geometric scope and amount of gameplay was huge - took me 40-odd hours to play through what I've done, and I've only played a couple of coop missions and a little over half the side missions).  It will be interesting to see if they can make Victorian London a bit more varied.