- Mass Effect 2: Every REAL gamer has played at least one game from Bioware. The famous creators of Knights of the Old Republic returned to the space opera genre with Mass Effect in 2007. Building on the dialogue system introduced in KOTOR, which was probably the greatest narration project ever seen in a game at the time, Mass Effect added player narration and cinematic, almost photo realistic expressions and character models to this winning combo. In the game, players followed the epic journey of Commander Shepard in his hunt for Saren who seeks to revive an ancient race that periodically devours all living matter in the galaxy before sowing the seeds of life anew. Players were faced with some pretty serious decisions throughout the story and the consequences of these choices will be felt in Mass Effect 2. That's right. Mass Effect players who've kept their save games, will be able to use them in Mass Effect 2 and it will grant them with not just a whole different starting point, but also different events in the story. ME2 picks up where number one left off. Humanity is apparently facing an unknown crisis and Shepard has taken on a suicide mission in an attempt to save it. Many elements are being kept in wrap but players can expect to see a shift in combat direction, more armchair gripping story events, and hopefully, another love story. After all, it wouldn't be a Bioware RPG without a touching love story. Mass Effect 2 is set to be released early 2010.
- Modern Warfare 2: Not Call of Duty anymore, now just Modern Warfare. Technically Call of Duty 6, Modern Warfare 2 is the direct sequel to Infinity Ward's best selling Call of Duty: Modern Warfare released in 2007. The original certainly didn't change too much from classic Call of Duty but brought players from WW2 into modern, 21st century warfare. A nonstop, mind blowing action ride, Modern Warfare saw players fighting as two separate characters in the Middle East and Russia as they hunted an infamous terrorist set on destruction of the free world. It was probably the only game where players could die two times in the same story. The true jewel of the game however, was the multiplayer which was even more fast pace than the campaign and is still very popular today. We won't know the full backdrop of Modern Warfare 2 until its released but as the direct sequel, we can expect it to continue its predecessors story and style. Players can expect to see some familiar faces return, lots of new locations like Brazil, and best of all, more crazy fast multiplayer action. Modern Warfare 2 is set to be released September 2009.
- Bioshock 2: Bioshock was touted as the spiritual successor of one the scariest games of all time: System Shock 2. As a gaming classic, Bioshock had a lot to live up to to even hold a "Shock" title. It brought players to the world of Rapture, an underwater city built after WW2 and run on a principle of pure capitalism. With no moral obligation or ethical concern, the city fell to anarchy. The player arrives only to find the city in ruin. As the story progresses, the player is used by a multitude of characters and eventually discovers he was born on rapture. The player character escapes rapture after confronting the power crazed rebellion leader Fontaine. Personally, I despised this game for many reasons. It did not live up to System Shock 2 in either scare factor or story telling. The developers also boasted of the game's morale dilemmas of which none had any real consequence since they did not effect the story of the game or effect the game play. Bioshock 2 does not continue the original characters story but does follow its time line. Some time has passed in Rapture since and players will now inherit the body of the first big daddy. If you didn't play the first game, these were diver suit clad super soldiers that protected biologically altered, zombie like little girls who hunted for highly demanded gene altering material. It is a bit odd since the time is now after the first story while you play a character who was around before the first story. Players who liked the game play of the first story can expect more of the same thing. The developers have added plasmid and weapon dual wielding as well as a new main enemy known as the big sister - a woman version of you who is kidnapping unaltered children to turn into little girls. Bioshock 2 is expected to be released November 2009.
- Alan Wake: Revealed way long ago at E3 2005, this thriller boasts a very novel story telling technique. The game follows a writer named Alan Wake who goes off into the country side with his wife, loses his wife, goes looking for here, but ends up facing off with daemonic entities and what not... how would you guess that? Well if it was that cliche obviously I wouldn't be looking forward to it. There's ton of the story that we don't know about yet. Whats really cool about this game is that it features episodic story telling like a TV series and some really great graphics too. Alan Wake is expected to be released... actually I don't know, but since it's been in production since 2005, winter 2009 seems like a good time to release it : D.
- Assassin's Creed 2: Assassin's Creed was well received at its 2007 inception. It sported absolutely gorgeous graphics which was used to show off equally spectacularly made maps of medieval cities and an ingeniously done building climbing system. The story revolved around Desmond, a normal guy with genetic memories of his assassin ancestors that people want to take. Playing through his memories, the player experiences the life of a medieval assassin. The games sequel, Assassin's Creed 2, sees the return of our hooded and, imo, badly voice acted, 11th century killer... Oh wait, its not Altair, its some other hooded assassin that looks exactly the same. Once again they appear to be digging though Desmond's brain with the same old Animus device that I thought totally didn't fit the story. Still the details of the story are sketchy beyond the fact that it takes place directly after the first and that you'll be going to Italy. The most notable location in which will be Venice. You're new medieval avatar will not be a full fledged assassin this time but a simple man after revenge for a plot to kill his family. As for the game play, we know you'll have some cool Leonardo da Vinci contraptions like a flying machine and apparently even a wrist mounted gun. Expect more of the same climbing, hiding, sword fighting, and jumping game play as well. Assassin's Creed 2 is set to be released November 2009.
- Operation Flashpoint 2 Dragon Rising: I don't know much about Operation Flashpoint other than it being a super realistic military simulation for which its developer Codemasters is famous for. Beyond being one of the few games to attempt to fully simulate modern military combat, Dragon Rising is also interesting since all game play takes place on one very gigantic island. This island named Skira becomes a battle zone between the US Army and the Chinese military when oil deposits are discovered on the island. Really the story of any military simulation is never that interesting so it really doesn't matter. What matters is that this island has over 270 square miles of ground for you to play on freely. You will be taking on missions but unlike other games, your destinations won't be separated by load screens but tens of miles of lush vegetation and mountains. To speed up your trips, there will be plenty vehicles for you to drive and wreck your enemies with at the same time. Even the multiplayer will be interesting with 32 players per game with each human player given three AI squad mates which means each game will have 128 things to shoot at. Operation Flashpoint 2: Dragon Rising is set to be released November 2009.
- Starcraft 2: This needs no explanation. Starcraft 2 is set to be released December 2009... Hey a man can dream right?
Friday, July 10, 2009
Winter 2009: A Season to Game
Every so often, there comes a period when a huge smorgasbord of good games are released at the same time. This upcoming winter will be one of those periods. Since the start of 2009, the PC gaming scene has been relatively barren despite the start of the summer season. I guess this is because all the games are set to release this winter! Lets take a look at some the top games you'll definitely want to add to your collection:
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Finally the Time to Buy a Netbook?
I've wanted a netbook since the release of the very first 7 inch Asus Eee PC. Who does not like the idea of a cheap, super mobile, PC? Without official Windows operation system support at release though, I decided to wait and see if Asus would continue to explore the idea. They did.. and so did the everyone else thus the netbook was officially born. As companies consistently decided to release new netbooks, I consistently decided to extend my wait. Up until now though, all netbooks have essentially been the same systems housed in different chassis. The very standard Atom 270, Intel's staple netbook processor, paired with their GMA 950 integrated graphics chipset, and a 1024 x 600 resolution screen has been the basis of every netbook so far released. Certainly frills such as bluetooth, card readers, basic SSDs, better or worse touchpads, speakers, or keyboards differentiate them, but the real product remains essentially the same. The HP mini has stood out being the first to house a higher resolution screen but was disproportionately more expensive. The Asus Eee PC Seashell 1008HA was alluring with its super slim and curvy form factor but in the end it was still no different from the existing netbooks.
It seems my long wait has finally paid off. Is it finally time to buy a netbook? I think so. Afterall Intel has finally released a new Atom processor, the Atom 280, Nvidia has release the Ion platform which grants Atom platforms the capabilities of a full Geforce 9400M, and producers are finally moving to higher resolution 1366 x 768 resolution screens. Many are even moving to AMD platforms. Netbooks set to be released soon will practically be fully fledged notbooks. The notable choices that have peaked my interest are the Acer Timeline 1810T rumored to be armed with a Core 2 Solo ULV SU3500 and GMA 4500 integrated graphics, the Lenovo S12 armed with an Atom 270 but paired with a Geforce 9400M, Gateway's LT3103U armed with AMD's Athlon 64 L110 and Radeon X1270 graphics, and Medion's Akoya Mini E1312 with its AMD Sempron 210U processor and Radeon X1250 graphics. Of particular interest is Asrock's G22 which they've stated packs an amazing Atom 330 dual core processor, Geforce 9400M, and a full, real DVD burner! That would be the first netbook ever to have an optical drive. The future looks bright for netbooks and though some would argue the fact that they are getting bigger is defeating their purpose, I for one would gladly lug the extra weight for the increased productivity provided by a REAL screen resolution and a REAL graphics processor. Gone will be the days of squinting at tiny screens and cramping on impractically small keyboards.
Sources: Hexus, Gizmodo
It seems my long wait has finally paid off. Is it finally time to buy a netbook? I think so. Afterall Intel has finally released a new Atom processor, the Atom 280, Nvidia has release the Ion platform which grants Atom platforms the capabilities of a full Geforce 9400M, and producers are finally moving to higher resolution 1366 x 768 resolution screens. Many are even moving to AMD platforms. Netbooks set to be released soon will practically be fully fledged notbooks. The notable choices that have peaked my interest are the Acer Timeline 1810T rumored to be armed with a Core 2 Solo ULV SU3500 and GMA 4500 integrated graphics, the Lenovo S12 armed with an Atom 270 but paired with a Geforce 9400M, Gateway's LT3103U armed with AMD's Athlon 64 L110 and Radeon X1270 graphics, and Medion's Akoya Mini E1312 with its AMD Sempron 210U processor and Radeon X1250 graphics. Of particular interest is Asrock's G22 which they've stated packs an amazing Atom 330 dual core processor, Geforce 9400M, and a full, real DVD burner! That would be the first netbook ever to have an optical drive. The future looks bright for netbooks and though some would argue the fact that they are getting bigger is defeating their purpose, I for one would gladly lug the extra weight for the increased productivity provided by a REAL screen resolution and a REAL graphics processor. Gone will be the days of squinting at tiny screens and cramping on impractically small keyboards.
Sources: Hexus, Gizmodo
Command and Conquer Serie's Conclusion Announced
Gamespot has released an interview with game designer Samuel Bass, lead designer of the campaign for Command and Conquer 4, dramatic conclusion to the Command and Conquer series. Screenshots show that the game is probably based on the same engine as Command and Conquer 3 and Red Alert 3. The interview describes that the direction of the game play introduce several new elements including "co-op campaigns, a new class-based game system, persistent experience points, mobile bases, and five-on-five multiplayer." They've also gone straight out and stated that Joe Kucan will return as Kane.
Source: Gamespot
Source: Gamespot
Mechwarrior Revealed
IGN has released the official reveal trailer of Mechwarrior, the newest Mechwarrior game. The game is being developed by Piranha Games, developer of the latest Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen game in conjunction with Smith and Tinker, the current holder of FASA Corporation's old holdings. Smith and Tinker was founded by Jordan Weisman, director of original Mechwarrior series. The reveal trailer shows footage the developers claim are rendered in game and feature ... uhh features that they claim are also in game. Among these are unmanned surveillance drones you can launch from your mech, dynamic destructible buildings that can collapse under the weight of certain mechs, and tons of fine details such as objects around you shaking as your mech takes steps, windows of buildings shattering from heavy mechs landing on them, and low caliber bullets bouncing off mech armor. Along with the trailer, IGN has also released a lengthy interview with the visionaries in Smith and Tinker. Apparently they plan to restart the Mechwarrior franchise from the very beginning so newcomers don't have to learn 25 years of Battletech history to get the story. They have big plans to return to a classic time when mechs were worth more than their pilots and losing one in battle was a big deal.
Source: IGN
Source: IGN
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Elecom Scope Node Review: All Style and No Substance?
Most of those in the west have probably never heard of the company Elecom. It is actually a very well known Japanese producer of computer peripherals. Any who have walked through one of the many multistory tech department stores in Japan will have seen plenty of Elecom products lining the shelves. This is a review of one of Elecom's most interesting mice: the Scope Node. With its strikingly sleek design, many in Asia have been drooling at this Japanese domestic market mouse. Is it all style and no substance? Read on to find out.
Design:
The most immediately noticeable aspect of the Elecom Scope Node is its striking, modern, and sleek design. Available in silver, black, and glossy silver, each color scheme oozes that futuristic class. The mouse almost looks like a combination of several parts strapped together like a transformer rather than a solid body. Closer inspection reveals that the mouse is actually built upon a solid body piece though and does not actually have floating buttons. Another interesting design feature of the mouse is the protruding bulge right in front of the thumb grip area. This is actually where the mouse's 1600 dpi laser sensor has been housed. I'm not exactly sure why Elecom chose to displace the sensor to this area but the packaging, which is in Japanese, relates it to holding a pen between the thumb and index finger. Perhaps Elecom believes this naturally more compatible with the human hand but I've never heard of any research evidence supporting this. Exactly where the laser is currently pointing is viewable through the black, transparent plastic top of the bulge. How this can possibly be useful is also a mystery to me. Beyond that, the Scope Node also features a classic, right handed mouse shape with a lengthened left click button and a shorter right click button. Oddly however, the left click is disproportionately long compared to the right click. The scroll wheel is rubber coated and held between the prongs that make up the mouse buttons. It uses a classic stepped scrolling and fully exposed to the outside on all sides meaning you can see the bottom of the mouse wheel when you flip the mouse over. An interesting design that makes sure no dirt can get clogged between the wheel and the chassis, a downfall of classic mice.
Feel:
In the frankest words possible, this mouse feels like crap. Its design is so inherently unergonomic that its a wonder how Elecom's industrial engineers allowed such a product to be made. Perhaps it is better fitted for the the smaller hands of the Japanese, indeed Japanese mice are very small, but to me the displaced laser does nothing but get in the way of your thumb. You cannot place your thumb comfortably on the side of the mouse without shifting your entire hand such that it grabs the mouse at an odd angle. Also the raised plate that forms the arch of the mouse sticks out so far and so high above the body while being so angular that it constantly digs into your palm. The abnormally short right click button also means you have to curl up your ring finger while using the mouse which is extremely uncomfortable for prolonged periods. The middle click also requires an abnormally large amount of force to depress. When combined with the ease of which it is to scroll the mouse wheel, it becomes very difficult to press the middle mouse button.
Build Quality:
Overall the build quality of the Scope Node is very good. It looks like metal but is actually entirely plastic. The body is coated by rubber velvet and can be gripped easily. The buttons and arch are made with a different, harder plastic that is very smooth to touch. The base of the mouse is standard affair made with glossy, hard plastic that scratches easily.
Performance:
The Scope Node is not built to rival high precision gaming mice, but with its 1600 dpi laser sensor, it can hold its own pretty well. I've flicked the mouse from side to side and never has it lost track, evident by your cursor staying in place despite your mouse moving. As with all laser mice however, it is a bit picky on what surfaces it tracks on. So far I have found it tracks fine on any cloth or plastic pad but not very well on wooden desktops. Due to its lack of software, the mouse has no methods to quickly change sensitivity beyond the Windows Control Panel.
Pros:
2 out of 5 Stars: More FAIL than WIN.
Design:
The most immediately noticeable aspect of the Elecom Scope Node is its striking, modern, and sleek design. Available in silver, black, and glossy silver, each color scheme oozes that futuristic class. The mouse almost looks like a combination of several parts strapped together like a transformer rather than a solid body. Closer inspection reveals that the mouse is actually built upon a solid body piece though and does not actually have floating buttons. Another interesting design feature of the mouse is the protruding bulge right in front of the thumb grip area. This is actually where the mouse's 1600 dpi laser sensor has been housed. I'm not exactly sure why Elecom chose to displace the sensor to this area but the packaging, which is in Japanese, relates it to holding a pen between the thumb and index finger. Perhaps Elecom believes this naturally more compatible with the human hand but I've never heard of any research evidence supporting this. Exactly where the laser is currently pointing is viewable through the black, transparent plastic top of the bulge. How this can possibly be useful is also a mystery to me. Beyond that, the Scope Node also features a classic, right handed mouse shape with a lengthened left click button and a shorter right click button. Oddly however, the left click is disproportionately long compared to the right click. The scroll wheel is rubber coated and held between the prongs that make up the mouse buttons. It uses a classic stepped scrolling and fully exposed to the outside on all sides meaning you can see the bottom of the mouse wheel when you flip the mouse over. An interesting design that makes sure no dirt can get clogged between the wheel and the chassis, a downfall of classic mice.
Feel:
In the frankest words possible, this mouse feels like crap. Its design is so inherently unergonomic that its a wonder how Elecom's industrial engineers allowed such a product to be made. Perhaps it is better fitted for the the smaller hands of the Japanese, indeed Japanese mice are very small, but to me the displaced laser does nothing but get in the way of your thumb. You cannot place your thumb comfortably on the side of the mouse without shifting your entire hand such that it grabs the mouse at an odd angle. Also the raised plate that forms the arch of the mouse sticks out so far and so high above the body while being so angular that it constantly digs into your palm. The abnormally short right click button also means you have to curl up your ring finger while using the mouse which is extremely uncomfortable for prolonged periods. The middle click also requires an abnormally large amount of force to depress. When combined with the ease of which it is to scroll the mouse wheel, it becomes very difficult to press the middle mouse button.
Build Quality:
Overall the build quality of the Scope Node is very good. It looks like metal but is actually entirely plastic. The body is coated by rubber velvet and can be gripped easily. The buttons and arch are made with a different, harder plastic that is very smooth to touch. The base of the mouse is standard affair made with glossy, hard plastic that scratches easily.
Performance:
The Scope Node is not built to rival high precision gaming mice, but with its 1600 dpi laser sensor, it can hold its own pretty well. I've flicked the mouse from side to side and never has it lost track, evident by your cursor staying in place despite your mouse moving. As with all laser mice however, it is a bit picky on what surfaces it tracks on. So far I have found it tracks fine on any cloth or plastic pad but not very well on wooden desktops. Due to its lack of software, the mouse has no methods to quickly change sensitivity beyond the Windows Control Panel.
Pros:
- No other mouse has a design this cool
- Good build quality
- Very decent 1600 dpi laser sensor
- Just plain unergonomic
- Difficult to perform middle click
- Quite picky with tracking surfaces
2 out of 5 Stars: More FAIL than WIN.
Mechwarrior to Return?
IGN has released a short teaser showing a desolate futuristic city which is suddenly rocked as the foot of a giant robot crashes to the ground in front of the camera before fading out. Apparently this has a lot of people riled up thinking this represents the imminent announcement of a new Mechwarrior game. IGN has announced they are set to publish an interview with the current owners of the Mechwarrior franchise regarding this trailer.
Personally, I could not be happier about a new Mechwarrior game. I grew up with the Mechwarrior franchise as a child and have always regarded Mechcommander 2 as one of the best strategy games ever produced.
Source: bit-tech
Personally, I could not be happier about a new Mechwarrior game. I grew up with the Mechwarrior franchise as a child and have always regarded Mechcommander 2 as one of the best strategy games ever produced.
Source: bit-tech
Dawn of War 2 Review: In the 41st Millenium, they've Run out of New Ideas
Gamesworkshop's Warhammer 40K tabletop game have spawned several games in the past years. Relic's Dawn of War and its various expansions, excluding Soulstorm possibly, have all been greatly received by non-tabletop game fans. It introduced ranged and melee combat, awesome sync kills, and great graphics. To this day, the original Dawn of War series still thrives in its great modding community which have churned out some of the most detailed mods to date. Now, several years later, Relic returns with Dawn of War's successor. Does it live up to its predecessor? Read on to find out.
Game Play:
Anyone who has played Relic's Company of Heroes will find Dawn of War 2 to be very familiar territory. Indeed the two games are based on the same engine. The real big change Relic made with Dawn of War 2 was removing base building. They have shrunk Company of Heroes' base down to one forward outpost which now builds all your units. The squad based combat, originally introduced in Dawn of War, is also back but with the Company of Heroes makeover. Units such as troops are purchased in squads that vary in size and move as groups albeit with some individuality unlike the original Dawn of War. Company of Heroes' cover system has also been retained allowing your squads in the game to take cover behind various objects. Being behind cover increases their defensive bonuses meaning they take less damage. Three types of cover exist: heavy cover which is represented by a green cursor, light cover represented by a yellow cursor, and building cover which is obviously granted by units garrisoned in buildings. Squads, when ordered to move, will move normally but will take cover automatically when they reach their destination. Cover is directional so squads that are flanked and shot from behind will take normal damage. Interestingly, squads when engaged while not in cover will often scramble for cover when fired upon, but if engaged from behind while behind cover, squads will not move to the other side of the cover. Tanks and larger units do not benefit from cover, but can provide cover to squads behind or beside them. Vehicles and selected larger units can also smash structures by running through them which is meant to introduce more tactical game play since you can destroy cover and dynamically change the battlefield. In reality however, vehicles usually run over more things than you want it to meaning games typically end with barren, coverless maps since tanks ran them all over. Melee combat and sync kills, the favorite of the original Dawn of War, has also returned. Squads, when engaged in very close combat, will switch to melee and begin hacking at each other. Many units are even melee only and have to engage in close combat to do damage. Squads have a combined HP that when is reduced to critical, will cause squad members to be rapidly killed off. If all the members of the squad are killed, then you lose the squad and have to buy it anew. You can save your squads by retreating them with the retreat command which will allow you to reinforce them at lower cost once they reach your outpost, a system also ported from Company of Heroes.
An interesting change Relic has made with Dawn of War 2 is shifted the focus to tactical, front line combat lead by a valuable hero unit of which you choose at the start of the game. The hero units have abilities which either focus on damaging the enemy or supporting your own troops. The shift to tactical combat means battles in Dawn of War 2 are small compared to its predecessor and a whole lot less hectic. Relic designed the game to force players to take greater care with their units through limiting they amount they can have in play at any time. Since units are so much more precious, using tactics like flanking enemy defenses become much more important. Game play shows in reality though, tactics employable in the game are very rudimentary and at most involve luring enemies into machine guns, tunneling under enemies and springing up from underneath them, or dropping down on them from the sky. I feel this game has even less tactics compared to Company of Heroes due to the reduced map sizes which don't allow for tactical maneuverability. Many gamers have already argued against the changes saying they are essentially not what Dawn of War is about and definitely not what Warhammer 40K is about. As a guy who knows at least a tid bit of what the Warhammer 40K universe is about, I would have to agree. I'm pretty sure retreat doesn't even exist in that universe let alone.
Dawn of War 2 has a lengthy single player campaign where you command a couple of squads of Space Marines against the other races. The campaign follows somewhat like that of Dark Crusades' where in the player chooses which battles to engage in from a large planet map before each mission. There are three planets that the campaign bounces back and forth between, each with its own environment: desert, jungle, and city. Beyond advancing the story, completing missions grants you war gear which you can equip on squads of your choice. These war gear upgrade their stats, grant abilities, and sometimes change their appearance. The campaign is also persistent in that the few squads you command will gain experiance and level up which grants abilities and stats boosts. Within the missions themselves, there are three types: assassination, defense, and special story missions. Most the missions are assassination missions which make you hunt an enemy boss which is a stronger version of another hero or unit. Defense missions make you hold a position by fending off a few waves of enemies. Finally story missions are the ones that truly advance the story and have certain specific objectives assisted by dialogue. Throughout the campaign however, you only have access to six different squads and not any of the other Space Marine units that exist in the skirmish making missions horribly repetitive as the the campaign progresses.
The standard classic arcade skirmish is also present. The player has access to four separate races, each of which has three heroes to choose from. These races are the aforementioned Space Marines, Orks, Elder, and Tyrannids. I won't bother to explain them here but suffice to say they each play quite differently. The real gripe with the skirmish is that there are only two game types, point control a la Company of Heroes, and death match a la... well every game that has ever existed. As if this weren't little enough variety, there's only six maps to play them on by default. Patches have since increased this number to 18 but several of these maps are only larger or smaller versions of each other for differing numbers of players. In the end, it all gets very boring very fast.
The game's multiplayer is, like all traditional strategy games, an online version of the skirmish so there is no reason to elaborate on the game play. The multiplayer is based on a ranking system where in players gain experiance by playing ranked matches setup for the player by the game. Winning or losing matches gains players experiance which in turn gives them wargear for their units. Unlike the singleplayer though, these wargear cannot be changed and do not provide any real stats bonuses. They are purely aesthetic so you can show enemies how much you potentially own. The matchmaking system works by matching something called players' Trueskill, some way Relic believes gauges your skill. In reality I have never observed this actually working since I've been paired with level 50 enemies during my first few matches. The matchmaking system also plays no attention to ping and will freely pair players on different sides of the world meaning a lagless multiplayer game, be it from ping or lagging players, is a rarity.
Control Scheme:
Dawn of War 2's game interface is standard affair. There's an integral minimap on the bottom left and a unit control panel on the bottom right. A list of all your units line the right hand side of the screen. It all fits there since you can't control many units in the game. An nifty feature is that every unit you create is automatically assigned to a number hotkey so you don't have to do it yourself. Also there's a button that will turn your unit control panel to your building panel when clicked giving easy access to build more units. Beyond that there's really nothing else to mention. The multiplayer lobby however, is a far different story. Here is not a case of mediocrity but a case of complete failure. The multiplayer game lobby is barren with only a game list and a join game button. How do you refresh the game list? You don't, it does it for you every 30 seconds or so. That's right, meaning if your scanning through your game list, its suddenly going to disappear during an auto refresh and you gotta look all over again. There's also no game filters meaning its going to be spending time finding 500+ ping games for you.
Graphics:
As this game is based on the Company of Heroes engine, the graphics are very similar. Since the introduction of the engine, various new features have been added including Direct x 10 support and improved shader effects. Still however the two games look quite similar. Model detail hasn't really been improved nor has skin resolution. The new environments are quite interesting and involve some new, purely aesthetic features such as water falls and endless drops into clouds of mists.
Sound:
Sound in this game is generally good with fitting but highly generic voice acting. Support is included for surround sound in the form of Dolby Pro Logic. Still explosions and weapons sound meaty and fitting. All in all, its standard affair that meets today's quality standards.
Pros:
FAIL-O-METER RATES:
2.5 out of 5 stars: The epitome of mediocrity.
Game Play:
Anyone who has played Relic's Company of Heroes will find Dawn of War 2 to be very familiar territory. Indeed the two games are based on the same engine. The real big change Relic made with Dawn of War 2 was removing base building. They have shrunk Company of Heroes' base down to one forward outpost which now builds all your units. The squad based combat, originally introduced in Dawn of War, is also back but with the Company of Heroes makeover. Units such as troops are purchased in squads that vary in size and move as groups albeit with some individuality unlike the original Dawn of War. Company of Heroes' cover system has also been retained allowing your squads in the game to take cover behind various objects. Being behind cover increases their defensive bonuses meaning they take less damage. Three types of cover exist: heavy cover which is represented by a green cursor, light cover represented by a yellow cursor, and building cover which is obviously granted by units garrisoned in buildings. Squads, when ordered to move, will move normally but will take cover automatically when they reach their destination. Cover is directional so squads that are flanked and shot from behind will take normal damage. Interestingly, squads when engaged while not in cover will often scramble for cover when fired upon, but if engaged from behind while behind cover, squads will not move to the other side of the cover. Tanks and larger units do not benefit from cover, but can provide cover to squads behind or beside them. Vehicles and selected larger units can also smash structures by running through them which is meant to introduce more tactical game play since you can destroy cover and dynamically change the battlefield. In reality however, vehicles usually run over more things than you want it to meaning games typically end with barren, coverless maps since tanks ran them all over. Melee combat and sync kills, the favorite of the original Dawn of War, has also returned. Squads, when engaged in very close combat, will switch to melee and begin hacking at each other. Many units are even melee only and have to engage in close combat to do damage. Squads have a combined HP that when is reduced to critical, will cause squad members to be rapidly killed off. If all the members of the squad are killed, then you lose the squad and have to buy it anew. You can save your squads by retreating them with the retreat command which will allow you to reinforce them at lower cost once they reach your outpost, a system also ported from Company of Heroes.
An interesting change Relic has made with Dawn of War 2 is shifted the focus to tactical, front line combat lead by a valuable hero unit of which you choose at the start of the game. The hero units have abilities which either focus on damaging the enemy or supporting your own troops. The shift to tactical combat means battles in Dawn of War 2 are small compared to its predecessor and a whole lot less hectic. Relic designed the game to force players to take greater care with their units through limiting they amount they can have in play at any time. Since units are so much more precious, using tactics like flanking enemy defenses become much more important. Game play shows in reality though, tactics employable in the game are very rudimentary and at most involve luring enemies into machine guns, tunneling under enemies and springing up from underneath them, or dropping down on them from the sky. I feel this game has even less tactics compared to Company of Heroes due to the reduced map sizes which don't allow for tactical maneuverability. Many gamers have already argued against the changes saying they are essentially not what Dawn of War is about and definitely not what Warhammer 40K is about. As a guy who knows at least a tid bit of what the Warhammer 40K universe is about, I would have to agree. I'm pretty sure retreat doesn't even exist in that universe let alone.
Dawn of War 2 has a lengthy single player campaign where you command a couple of squads of Space Marines against the other races. The campaign follows somewhat like that of Dark Crusades' where in the player chooses which battles to engage in from a large planet map before each mission. There are three planets that the campaign bounces back and forth between, each with its own environment: desert, jungle, and city. Beyond advancing the story, completing missions grants you war gear which you can equip on squads of your choice. These war gear upgrade their stats, grant abilities, and sometimes change their appearance. The campaign is also persistent in that the few squads you command will gain experiance and level up which grants abilities and stats boosts. Within the missions themselves, there are three types: assassination, defense, and special story missions. Most the missions are assassination missions which make you hunt an enemy boss which is a stronger version of another hero or unit. Defense missions make you hold a position by fending off a few waves of enemies. Finally story missions are the ones that truly advance the story and have certain specific objectives assisted by dialogue. Throughout the campaign however, you only have access to six different squads and not any of the other Space Marine units that exist in the skirmish making missions horribly repetitive as the the campaign progresses.
The standard classic arcade skirmish is also present. The player has access to four separate races, each of which has three heroes to choose from. These races are the aforementioned Space Marines, Orks, Elder, and Tyrannids. I won't bother to explain them here but suffice to say they each play quite differently. The real gripe with the skirmish is that there are only two game types, point control a la Company of Heroes, and death match a la... well every game that has ever existed. As if this weren't little enough variety, there's only six maps to play them on by default. Patches have since increased this number to 18 but several of these maps are only larger or smaller versions of each other for differing numbers of players. In the end, it all gets very boring very fast.
The game's multiplayer is, like all traditional strategy games, an online version of the skirmish so there is no reason to elaborate on the game play. The multiplayer is based on a ranking system where in players gain experiance by playing ranked matches setup for the player by the game. Winning or losing matches gains players experiance which in turn gives them wargear for their units. Unlike the singleplayer though, these wargear cannot be changed and do not provide any real stats bonuses. They are purely aesthetic so you can show enemies how much you potentially own. The matchmaking system works by matching something called players' Trueskill, some way Relic believes gauges your skill. In reality I have never observed this actually working since I've been paired with level 50 enemies during my first few matches. The matchmaking system also plays no attention to ping and will freely pair players on different sides of the world meaning a lagless multiplayer game, be it from ping or lagging players, is a rarity.
Control Scheme:
Dawn of War 2's game interface is standard affair. There's an integral minimap on the bottom left and a unit control panel on the bottom right. A list of all your units line the right hand side of the screen. It all fits there since you can't control many units in the game. An nifty feature is that every unit you create is automatically assigned to a number hotkey so you don't have to do it yourself. Also there's a button that will turn your unit control panel to your building panel when clicked giving easy access to build more units. Beyond that there's really nothing else to mention. The multiplayer lobby however, is a far different story. Here is not a case of mediocrity but a case of complete failure. The multiplayer game lobby is barren with only a game list and a join game button. How do you refresh the game list? You don't, it does it for you every 30 seconds or so. That's right, meaning if your scanning through your game list, its suddenly going to disappear during an auto refresh and you gotta look all over again. There's also no game filters meaning its going to be spending time finding 500+ ping games for you.
Graphics:
As this game is based on the Company of Heroes engine, the graphics are very similar. Since the introduction of the engine, various new features have been added including Direct x 10 support and improved shader effects. Still however the two games look quite similar. Model detail hasn't really been improved nor has skin resolution. The new environments are quite interesting and involve some new, purely aesthetic features such as water falls and endless drops into clouds of mists.
Sound:
Sound in this game is generally good with fitting but highly generic voice acting. Support is included for surround sound in the form of Dolby Pro Logic. Still explosions and weapons sound meaty and fitting. All in all, its standard affair that meets today's quality standards.
Pros:
- Action orientated game play
- Great graphics
- Pretty engaging campaign story
- Distinct races
- Easy to get into
- Horribly repetitive campaign
- Horribly repetitive skirmish and online game play
- Original game shipped with so few maps it wasn't worth the cost of the game
- Horrible multiplayer lobby and matchmaking system
- Smaller battles with reduced tactics compared to Company of Heroes
- Feels 80% like Company of Heroes
FAIL-O-METER RATES:
2.5 out of 5 stars: The epitome of mediocrity.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Men of War Review: The Last Great War Game?
World War Two is perhaps the single most over used and cliche setting any gamer can think of for a strategy game (RTS). With the host of WWII real time strategy games already on the market like Relic's Company of Heroes series and upcoming titles like Ubisoft's Ruse, you'd be hard pressed not to wonder where there is space for anymore. Digitalmindsoft, a small European producer, brings there addition to this overcrowded market with Men of War, successor to their previous title, Soldiers: Heroes of WWII released in 2004. Now what sets Men of War apart you might ask? Read the structured review below to find out.
Game Play:
Men of War is not your classic arcade RTS. You will notice this immediately due to the lack of base building. Now the frontline action RTS genre has really grown a bit in the past years so this isn't the first time we've seen this, no. What really makes this game different from a classic arcade RTS, in fact different from ANY RTS is the fact that you don't produce units or manage an economy. The game play completely revolves around giving you total control of small squads of soldiers and using them to complete objectives in missions. This would seem like a stupid idea given most gamers existing mindset of RTS units. That is you point and click, your units attack, then die. Units in Men of War are not like this. Digitalmindsoft has built their game around a completely new concept and have single-handedly redefined the meaning of the unit. The few soldiers you're often given to complete missions in the game are smart. They not only know when to shoot or even to take cover. They know how to throw grenades when enemies are behind cover, throw grenades back at enemies, change stances to better hit or evade the enemy, switch weapons depending on how far the enemy is, approach armored vehicles with anti tank grenades, heal themselves with bandages when critically wounded, swim, drive tanks, drive cars, drive motorcycles... The list goes on. The fact is, units in Men of War are not units, they are not even NPCs, each and every man in the game has a full AI that rivals a bots. Each man has their own inventory, can hold and shoot any weapon provided they have ammo for that weapon in their inventory, throw any grenade, or use any object. Even vehicles such as tanks or cars are not units, they are objects controlled by the men you place inside them. A tank can be operated by one man, but then this man can't drive and shoot at the same time. If you want the tank to move, the man inside it will drive it, if you want the tank to shoot, the man inside must switch positions to the turret, load the gun, turn the turret, then fire. If you have more men inside the tank then driving and shooting can occur simultaneously because there are enough men in the tank to operate each system.
The smart men in Men of War live in a similarly smart environment. Men of War features fully interactive and destructive environments which hold fully interactive objects. A building in a map cannot be click selected and attacked or garrisoned in the classic sense. Your men can enter a building through the door, or by jumping through a window or a broken wall. Once inside, the roof of the building becomes transparent allowing you to see where your men are inside. From there you can direct them to take cover or shoot out windows or even plant a stick of dynamite, if your men have one, if you want to take down the whole building. The buildings, walls, and rock formations are all extensions of the map and thus can be destroyed realistically bet it with explosives or running a tank through them. The physics engine in Men of War is so spectacular that buildings even feature individual parts and will collapse differently depending on how they are damaged. For example the whole front face a building can be torn down leaving the rest of the building standing but the roof section held up by the front wall would obviously collapse. Even the debris pieces that break off the building are objects that remain on the ground and can be freely kicked around by tanks. A particularly interesting thing players might notice is that when moving heavy objects over ice, of which particular maps have, their is a chance the object, like a tank, will break through the ice and be lost to the depths.
Well there was my rant on how amazing this game's engine is. Now I'm sure you're ready to here how the game actually plays. As I said earlier, Men of War revolves around you controlling few squads of men on missions. There are three separation campaigns in the game: Russian with nine missions, German with five missions, and American with five missions. There are an additional set of five bonus missions unrelated to the campaigns bringing the total mission count to 24. This is a lot of levels for a single player game. They're not short levels either, most levels will take upwards of 30 to 45 minutes to complete while some will stretch on for hours on end. The mission variety and map design is excellent. Some missions will have very Commandos feel with you controlling only four men in an enemy infested town which forces you to make use of stealth. Others will arm you with a full brigade of troops as you try to defend against waves and waves of enemy attackers. These missions are, without any doubt, the most epic game moments I've ever seen with hundreds of enemies charging your lines while air planes fly above dropping bombs. There are mixed missions as well which may start as a covert mission but evolve into a full on assault on a heavily fortified enemy position. The campaigns mix these three mission types very well and you won't ever find yourself playing three commandos missions in a row. Unfortunately, I believe most players who haven't played Men of War's predecessor, will find these campaigns excessively difficult. This is because every mission pits you against overwhelming odds. It will be common case for you to face against an army of 100 or more men with only four men. Of course such missions will not require you to eliminate the enemy though, thus using stealth to complete your objectives is natural in these cases. However the loss of even one man in these missions will likely cause you to fail. Also you will never find yourself bogged down by having to micro your men in huge hectic battles where you control fifty or more men as such missions rarely require you to control units individually. In these epic battles, the loss of even dozens of men are not likely to jeopardize your chances of success. Additionally, the phenomenal AI of your units allow them to hold their own without you having to babysit them. The game is hyper realistic though so don't expect your men to survive very many hits. They can heal if they have bandages but if your men ever come face to face with a tank, don't expect them to last very long. All weapons and vehicles in game are true to life as well so in many cases, if you don't have the appropriate weapon, you have to hide and improvise or die. Many a times I've pushed my luck by running a light tank into enemy lines only to have the instantly destroyed by an enemy anti tank weapon or shot repeatedly at heavier tanks with weapons having no chance at all to penetrate their armor. The developers did not sweat any details with this game so the player seriously needs to make use of real life tactics. How do you take down a tank without a bazooka? You draw its fire with one guy, sneak another guy around the tank, plant a dynamite beside the tank, then run for you life and hope that tank doesn't move away.
A multiplayer component is also present in the game. It features several game types such as point control, death match, assault, front line assault, and even campaign co-op. A great variety but all standard affair here. All but front line assault and campaign co-op occur on a huge list of shared maps however. I haven't counted but the total number I think is above 25. Each map is just as detailed as the campaign maps.
Control Scheme:
If my writeup of the game play seems overly patronizing, my writeup of the control scheme will not. Men of War does not have a very good control scheme. The menu doesn't take up an excessive amount of space and is quite lean. There's a standard unit control panel to the bottom right, a smaller unit status panel on the bottom left, and a long shortcut bar spanning the bottom of the screen. The design is not innately bad, its just very cluttered due to the sheer number of functions available. The unit control panel has buttons for reloading, unloading, holstering, arming, planting bombs, switching weapons, changing stances, changing movement pattern, changing firing commands, etc. When each unit even has a player manageable inventory that can hold any number of things, it gets confusing very fast. The game's lack of tutorial makes this all the more worse and I can see many players buying this game and giving up before they even start due to the interface. Obvious features such as being able to select specific men from a group of selected ones using the interface are annoyingly missing too. On the bright side, some pretty nifty features like being able to move the minimap, inventory, and objectives panels freely to allow you some measure of interface customization are included.
Graphics:
Men of War's engine is, frankly, outdated as it is only a highly improved version of its predecessor's engine now over five years old. This is not a derogatory statement against Men of War, but a testament to how great the original engine was programmed. The graphics certainly can't keep up with the likes of modern RTS like Dawn of War 2 or World in Conflict but are certainly not low detailed. Though it lacks advanced shader model support, Direct X 10, advanced water modeling, or advanced particle effects, it more than makes up with sheer graphical detail. Object models of tanks and buildings exceed most existing RTS games and the huge number of plants, vegetation, buildings, and wreckage in maps mean no scene is ever boring to see. Zooming in close to units does reveal slightly low resolution skins though. Explosions and effects aren't as flashy as they are in World in Conflict but seem more realistic due to the decreased amount of Hollywood fire and increased amount of explosion debris.
Sound:
There is nothing advanced about Men of War's sound system. The game does not support surround sound, Creative, Dolby, or DTS enhancements. In stereo audio though, the game's sound effects are fairly impressive. Explosions pack a fair amount of oomph and weapons sound are fitting, especially tanks. There is not a large enough variety of weapon sound effects however so not every weapon sounds like their real life counterpart. A particular aspect many players have already highlighted however, is the absolutely atrocious voice acting for the English version of the game. The voice acting is more often than not, laughable with some of the most horrible attempts to sound fitting ever.
Bugs:
Men of War's predecessor suffered horribly from excessive bugs. Many players found it unplayable. Men of War however, I can safely say, is almost bug free. Of all the times I've played it, it has never crashed. I have also seldom encountered bugs in game. Occasionally soldiers have become stuck in geometry or objects been thrown to stupid lengths by disproportionate explosions but none are game breaking bugs.
Pros:
4.5 out of 5 Stars: Made of WIN!
Game Play:
Men of War is not your classic arcade RTS. You will notice this immediately due to the lack of base building. Now the frontline action RTS genre has really grown a bit in the past years so this isn't the first time we've seen this, no. What really makes this game different from a classic arcade RTS, in fact different from ANY RTS is the fact that you don't produce units or manage an economy. The game play completely revolves around giving you total control of small squads of soldiers and using them to complete objectives in missions. This would seem like a stupid idea given most gamers existing mindset of RTS units. That is you point and click, your units attack, then die. Units in Men of War are not like this. Digitalmindsoft has built their game around a completely new concept and have single-handedly redefined the meaning of the unit. The few soldiers you're often given to complete missions in the game are smart. They not only know when to shoot or even to take cover. They know how to throw grenades when enemies are behind cover, throw grenades back at enemies, change stances to better hit or evade the enemy, switch weapons depending on how far the enemy is, approach armored vehicles with anti tank grenades, heal themselves with bandages when critically wounded, swim, drive tanks, drive cars, drive motorcycles... The list goes on. The fact is, units in Men of War are not units, they are not even NPCs, each and every man in the game has a full AI that rivals a bots. Each man has their own inventory, can hold and shoot any weapon provided they have ammo for that weapon in their inventory, throw any grenade, or use any object. Even vehicles such as tanks or cars are not units, they are objects controlled by the men you place inside them. A tank can be operated by one man, but then this man can't drive and shoot at the same time. If you want the tank to move, the man inside it will drive it, if you want the tank to shoot, the man inside must switch positions to the turret, load the gun, turn the turret, then fire. If you have more men inside the tank then driving and shooting can occur simultaneously because there are enough men in the tank to operate each system.
The smart men in Men of War live in a similarly smart environment. Men of War features fully interactive and destructive environments which hold fully interactive objects. A building in a map cannot be click selected and attacked or garrisoned in the classic sense. Your men can enter a building through the door, or by jumping through a window or a broken wall. Once inside, the roof of the building becomes transparent allowing you to see where your men are inside. From there you can direct them to take cover or shoot out windows or even plant a stick of dynamite, if your men have one, if you want to take down the whole building. The buildings, walls, and rock formations are all extensions of the map and thus can be destroyed realistically bet it with explosives or running a tank through them. The physics engine in Men of War is so spectacular that buildings even feature individual parts and will collapse differently depending on how they are damaged. For example the whole front face a building can be torn down leaving the rest of the building standing but the roof section held up by the front wall would obviously collapse. Even the debris pieces that break off the building are objects that remain on the ground and can be freely kicked around by tanks. A particularly interesting thing players might notice is that when moving heavy objects over ice, of which particular maps have, their is a chance the object, like a tank, will break through the ice and be lost to the depths.
Well there was my rant on how amazing this game's engine is. Now I'm sure you're ready to here how the game actually plays. As I said earlier, Men of War revolves around you controlling few squads of men on missions. There are three separation campaigns in the game: Russian with nine missions, German with five missions, and American with five missions. There are an additional set of five bonus missions unrelated to the campaigns bringing the total mission count to 24. This is a lot of levels for a single player game. They're not short levels either, most levels will take upwards of 30 to 45 minutes to complete while some will stretch on for hours on end. The mission variety and map design is excellent. Some missions will have very Commandos feel with you controlling only four men in an enemy infested town which forces you to make use of stealth. Others will arm you with a full brigade of troops as you try to defend against waves and waves of enemy attackers. These missions are, without any doubt, the most epic game moments I've ever seen with hundreds of enemies charging your lines while air planes fly above dropping bombs. There are mixed missions as well which may start as a covert mission but evolve into a full on assault on a heavily fortified enemy position. The campaigns mix these three mission types very well and you won't ever find yourself playing three commandos missions in a row. Unfortunately, I believe most players who haven't played Men of War's predecessor, will find these campaigns excessively difficult. This is because every mission pits you against overwhelming odds. It will be common case for you to face against an army of 100 or more men with only four men. Of course such missions will not require you to eliminate the enemy though, thus using stealth to complete your objectives is natural in these cases. However the loss of even one man in these missions will likely cause you to fail. Also you will never find yourself bogged down by having to micro your men in huge hectic battles where you control fifty or more men as such missions rarely require you to control units individually. In these epic battles, the loss of even dozens of men are not likely to jeopardize your chances of success. Additionally, the phenomenal AI of your units allow them to hold their own without you having to babysit them. The game is hyper realistic though so don't expect your men to survive very many hits. They can heal if they have bandages but if your men ever come face to face with a tank, don't expect them to last very long. All weapons and vehicles in game are true to life as well so in many cases, if you don't have the appropriate weapon, you have to hide and improvise or die. Many a times I've pushed my luck by running a light tank into enemy lines only to have the instantly destroyed by an enemy anti tank weapon or shot repeatedly at heavier tanks with weapons having no chance at all to penetrate their armor. The developers did not sweat any details with this game so the player seriously needs to make use of real life tactics. How do you take down a tank without a bazooka? You draw its fire with one guy, sneak another guy around the tank, plant a dynamite beside the tank, then run for you life and hope that tank doesn't move away.
A multiplayer component is also present in the game. It features several game types such as point control, death match, assault, front line assault, and even campaign co-op. A great variety but all standard affair here. All but front line assault and campaign co-op occur on a huge list of shared maps however. I haven't counted but the total number I think is above 25. Each map is just as detailed as the campaign maps.
Control Scheme:
If my writeup of the game play seems overly patronizing, my writeup of the control scheme will not. Men of War does not have a very good control scheme. The menu doesn't take up an excessive amount of space and is quite lean. There's a standard unit control panel to the bottom right, a smaller unit status panel on the bottom left, and a long shortcut bar spanning the bottom of the screen. The design is not innately bad, its just very cluttered due to the sheer number of functions available. The unit control panel has buttons for reloading, unloading, holstering, arming, planting bombs, switching weapons, changing stances, changing movement pattern, changing firing commands, etc. When each unit even has a player manageable inventory that can hold any number of things, it gets confusing very fast. The game's lack of tutorial makes this all the more worse and I can see many players buying this game and giving up before they even start due to the interface. Obvious features such as being able to select specific men from a group of selected ones using the interface are annoyingly missing too. On the bright side, some pretty nifty features like being able to move the minimap, inventory, and objectives panels freely to allow you some measure of interface customization are included.
Graphics:
Men of War's engine is, frankly, outdated as it is only a highly improved version of its predecessor's engine now over five years old. This is not a derogatory statement against Men of War, but a testament to how great the original engine was programmed. The graphics certainly can't keep up with the likes of modern RTS like Dawn of War 2 or World in Conflict but are certainly not low detailed. Though it lacks advanced shader model support, Direct X 10, advanced water modeling, or advanced particle effects, it more than makes up with sheer graphical detail. Object models of tanks and buildings exceed most existing RTS games and the huge number of plants, vegetation, buildings, and wreckage in maps mean no scene is ever boring to see. Zooming in close to units does reveal slightly low resolution skins though. Explosions and effects aren't as flashy as they are in World in Conflict but seem more realistic due to the decreased amount of Hollywood fire and increased amount of explosion debris.
Sound:
There is nothing advanced about Men of War's sound system. The game does not support surround sound, Creative, Dolby, or DTS enhancements. In stereo audio though, the game's sound effects are fairly impressive. Explosions pack a fair amount of oomph and weapons sound are fitting, especially tanks. There is not a large enough variety of weapon sound effects however so not every weapon sounds like their real life counterpart. A particular aspect many players have already highlighted however, is the absolutely atrocious voice acting for the English version of the game. The voice acting is more often than not, laughable with some of the most horrible attempts to sound fitting ever.
Bugs:
Men of War's predecessor suffered horribly from excessive bugs. Many players found it unplayable. Men of War however, I can safely say, is almost bug free. Of all the times I've played it, it has never crashed. I have also seldom encountered bugs in game. Occasionally soldiers have become stuck in geometry or objects been thrown to stupid lengths by disproportionate explosions but none are game breaking bugs.
Pros:
- No other WWII experiance like it
- Incredible map and model detail
- Engaging game play that actually requires thinking and real tactics
- Lengthy, quality campaign
- Absolutely amazing AI
- Exceptional Realism
- Punishingly difficult
- Absolutely horrid voice acting
- Dated graphics
- Confusing and cluttered interface
- No tutorial
4.5 out of 5 Stars: Made of WIN!
Armchair Control Center Initialization
Hello and welcome to the Armchair Control Center, a technology and gaming blog. Here I plan to share with you all news, insights, and reviews of all manner of computer hardware, games, and gadgetry. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
