2008-11-15T19:25:18+00:00 665 53 2009-11-07T00:52:45+00:00 Lyx If you expect a "game" for "playing" this, you will be disappointed. What this is, is more like a statement, a parody, about RPGs and MMORPGs. And it is from a philosophical POV brilliantly and amusingly executed. If you liked "Achievement Unlocked", then you will probably also like this. 2009-04-18T01:32:31+00:00 0 429 5

Not a game but a statement

2009-06-17T19:32:24+00:00 665 Lyx If you dont know the original, then here is an alternative description: Remember that tron lightcycle game? Well, imagine that, but with the twist that you cannot just turn on the X and Y axis, but also the Z axis - tron lightcycles in 3D. Another subtle difference is that the playfield is "rasterized". With this i mean that it is "tile-based" - but since we're talking 3D, "cube-based" would be a better description. So, you move around the playfield and leave walls of cubes behind you. The combination of both: 3d and rasterized movement, give the game a feeling similiar to "First-Person 3D-Tetris": When the playfield becomes quite crowded, you quickly need to navigate trough a 3D-maze. Similiar to skateboarding-sims and co., CCW awards extra points for performing certain stunts, like "orbiting" around an enemy wall, and other tricks. The game feels very polished and player-friendly - it even comes with a detailed and accessable training mode, where you can freely practice the various stunts, including visual and aural help when to perform which turns. The only thing which keeps me from giving this game a rating of 5, is that it is restricted to 1player. The lack of multiplayer feels quite strange to me, since this is one of those games, which would be the most fun if played with other humans. A similiar game with multiplayer-support exists, but it feels much less polished than CCW. 2009-04-22T22:41:09+00:00 0 431 4

2009-04-27T07:41:43+00:00 665 Lyx Most other reviewers did already mention all the nice things about this game, but before getting to my point, i'll do a quick summary anyways: - A cross between system shock and a platformer - Unusual choice of visuals which may remind some people about Another World and Impossible Mission - Story is mostly linear, but the individual levels are large and you are in many ways free in how to go through them - in total, the gameworld is quite big - perhaps not as big as Aquaria, but big enough. - many secrets and specials to uncover - combat feels more tactical than is usual in a platformer - interesting and unique boss-battles. - the soundtrack is well composed, though mixing wise it was mastered a bit too hot -------------- With all the awesomeness of this game adressed, i'll talk about something which hasn't been mentioned much, and which to me is the only significant flaw in the game. And that is the naive dualistic theme of moral choice in the game. To summarize it, the moral point of this game is "either you are a bad bloodthirsty massmurder, or you are a masochistic pacifist which enjoys being blasted through the levels by enemy rockets without even thinking of returning fire". Sanity? Not an option. Let me get the scenario clear: You get thrown into a world, in which everyone fires at you on sight, with no questions asked - and your character feels guilty for defending herself. The only other option which you are given - which is supposed to be the "good" option, is to run and jump through the levels, with bullets and rockets everywhere. Since that simply isn't possible to do cleanly, what this translates to is that you literarly will get sent flying through corridors regularly - you are basically simply doing a speedrun, try not to get hit too often, and thats it. Its a masochist-trip. Thats what according to the moral of the game, is "good". Well, okay you may think: "If i can opt out of that and just do what i think makes sense, then thats no problem, right?". Depends - a significant part of the game is the story... and the story as well is full with that naive idea of "morals". What is most perplexing is that when you see the endgame dialogue, you will notice that the author is well capable of writing dialogue which is very interesting and refreshing - almost philosophical... but unfortunatelly, he just didn't do that in the rest of the game. In summary, this game simply wasn't designed from the ground up for such a "moral choice". It was designed as a platform shooter in which you can act more or less aggressive. The unnecessary moral choice seems to have been forced in, as if it was afterthought. Don't get the wrong impression here: This game is very enjoyable and has a lot to offer - just don't expect wonders from the story. 2009-02-26T00:42:27+00:00 0 374 4

SS2 Anime Platformer

2009-05-28T09:20:11+00:00 665 Lyx The gameplay of Dive is rather simple. Dive as deep as you can, avoid hostile creatures, replenish air supply from friendly creatures. What makes dive special is the atmosphere and feeling which it creates. This game really captures the atmosphere of playing one of those really old arcade games from the early 80ies. This isn't just because it's low-res... i cannot really explain what it is. Perhaps its that it is so simple - just the essence of a game idea without anything added to it. If you liked the nostalgic trip back in time of Crypts of Despair, then you will probably also love this little gem. 2008-12-24T07:47:26+00:00 0 295 4

retro feel

2008-12-24T18:59:17+00:00 665 Lyx The premise of MnB is Elite in a non-fantasy medieval world and some more. It's a sandbox game. Describing further what MnB is and what it isn't, depends heavily on if you judge "what it currently actually is" or if you judge "what it is trying to be". Why is that? Well, because 1.0 got released before all the game elements were completed. I'll start with its premise - what it is trying to be. It is supposed to be a great dynamic freeform multi-genre game in a medieval setting. You create a character including various attributes and skills, RPG-style. Then you get dropped into the world and are free to do whatever you like. You will first see your party (you start out with a few recruits at your side) on the world map. On it, you can freely move around. If you enter a location (i.e. cities) or an event is triggered (i.e. battle) the action "zooms in" and you control yourself from first person perspective. In the case of battles, you can also give simple orders to your other party-members. Dialogue and decisions are handled via multiple-choice menus, adventure style. As for opportunities, there are supposed to be many: you can trade, be a bounty-hunter, do random quests, make a career among one of the kingdoms, be a pirate - you know those mechanics by now. Different to other such freelancer game, the game is trying to stay "personal" and keep up the storytelling aspect of roleplaying. Various units are supposed to not just be "things" but beings with a personality, intentions and relations. Regarding battles, even though they are played in realtime FPS style, the game mechanics manage to keep in the tactical and RPG aspects. So, winning battles is not just a matter of fast reflexes. Your equipment-style and that of your troops matters, the environment matters, your skills matter, your orders matter, etc, etc. Actually, running frontally into a battle as if playing a shooter is a safe way to lose fast. Up to this point, it seems that the game is giving you everything a freelancer could ever dream of, right? So where's the catch? The catch is that the game was released before all the above stuff was fully implemented. For starters, there were a lot of placeholders for RP-aspects in the betas, but most (though, not all) got dropped with the release. There is no satisfying story-structure in the game which ties the various events together. It is as if you play a game which was supposed to get various content added later during development, but then got released without this happening. Ironically, near the 1.0 release, some content which previously was there actually got removed. For example, in earlier versions, the player would start near a neutral town called zender. The inhabitants there would introduce the player to the game, offer various tutorials, a beginner quest, etc, etc. The entire town got axed before release and the player now simply gets dropped into the middle of the world without any initial guidance. Similarily, regarding opportunities, the game is strongly geared for being a "vassal" - that is, acting in the service of a kingdom. If you do not follow that route, then you will quickly notice that there aren't many opportunities for you. The only thing left then is trading and fighting bandit-parties. The same is the case for the quests. Outside of the vassal-route, there aren't many random quests and events. And they aren't even randomised much, meaning that they each of them doesn't vary much. What's more, half of the quests are highly annoying. Did i mention already that they dont even pay off well? So, with all those things missing, what is this game? It is a great medieval battle simulator with currently the best horseback combat available. If you play a lord of a kingdom, it is also a satisfying lightweight RPG. It also aesthetically is a piece of art. If you are satisfied with that, you will love MnB. If you desire more, you will be disappointed how much this game could be, yet isn't. 2008-12-10T16:35:34+00:00 0 287 4

Unfinished

2009-02-24T06:38:31+00:00 665 Lyx The feeling of playing the game can probably be best described as a sack race in a platformer shell, with the addition of the player avatar feeling as if it is made out of rubber. This mix results in a similiar appeal as the other taat games: Your failures are more fun than winning. There is no way to stay serious while playing the game - you will turn into a silly kid :) Now, if only there were a two-player mode and dedicated levels for that, then this would catapult the game to a rating of five for me :) 2008-11-25T01:52:24+00:00 0 280 4

The fun of being amused about oneself

2008-11-25T01:52:24+00:00 665 Lyx This is a game of a kind which you dont see often nowadays. A simple yet fun idea. It isn't pretentios - it doesn't try to add unnecessary stuff to the foundation - and it doesn't need to. Its just a plain simple non-copycat fun idea made into a videogame. I want more of such games :) 2008-11-21T19:59:41+00:00 0 276 4

Simple fun

2008-11-21T19:59:41+00:00 665 Lyx I like sandbox freeform gameworlds in which you make up your own story. Even more so, if it feels like a living world which doesn't rotate only around me. So, i should love DF, right? Well, besides of the above criteria, i also value an efficient accessable interface and polish - both are perhaps the biggest current flaws in the game. So, DF is a bit like a love-hate relationship for me. More details: DF isn't just a normal roguelike - it is a simulation of an entire fantasyworld, including as "trivial" things as weather patterns. The sheer quantity of things which this game simulates in the background is incredible. Depending on which game-mode you choose, you either play on the makro-level by managing a colony, or on the micro-level by being an adventurer in the world. You can even start an adventurer and visit the colony which you previously created in macro mode. So, we are really talking about simulated worlds here, from macro-level down to micro-level. In this regard, the game is a sandbox-lovers dream. However, the game also shares the same typical flaws as other roguelikes - because of the high complexity, even in an escalated way. First, we of course obviously have the dreaded ascii graphics. For some strange reasons, roguelike developers as well as players up to today seem to think that it has to be either immersion-killing high-res graphics, or inaccessable ASCII graphics... as if obfuscation were synonymous with immersion. Well, here's a wake up call: Imagination and immersion has nothing to do with obfuscation - not even with low-res graphics... it has to do with symbolism. If you only give the player "symbols" which tell him what to imagine, then he knows what is meant, and he constructs the details in his mind. The key misunderstanding here is the meaning of the word "symbol". Symbol here does not necessarily mean ASCII-chars - it simply means "something" which symbolizes something else. For example, the most efficient symbol for a dragon is not a D, but some shape which intuitively is associated with a dragon. Very old CRPGs did that all the time. You dont even need to be a pixel artist to create such "symbolic visuals". That way, you dont need to obfuscate the display, dont need a horde of pixel artists, dont run out of chars to use and still keep the immaginative aspect. The other typical roguelike flaw which DF shares with the rest - perhaps even more so than usual - is the input-interface. Keys are inconsistently and unintuitively mapped. Why do i need multiple different keys to "go back/cancel"? Why do i need multiple different keys to "accept/continue"? Why does every single minor action need to have a seperate key, thus making the keyboard-map as complex as a flight simulator (no joke!), instead of grouping similiar actions and then accessing them via menus? Ironically, the keymapping complexity goes so much out of hand, that it is possible to in the key-assignment options, unintentionally lock yourself out of making any changes, so that you can only fix it by... yep, resorting to editing configuration files in a text-editor. Its things like these which make sure that such games stay "geek-games". DF is an example by the book for a game, which under the hood is very impressive, has endless possibilities and regarding gameplay is a milestone... yet, it struggles to communicate this awesomeness to the player, because of a horrible interface (again, these flaws are not specific to DF, but most roguelikes... its just especially a shame for DF, because DF is much more than typical other roguelikes). In summary: DF is like someone who has a vast, incredible, wonderful and amazing message for you - you just have to decrypt it. 2008-11-23T07:17:12+00:00 0 278 3

Gigantic potential, roguelike interface

2009-11-07T00:52:44+00:00 665 Lyx The idea of the game is solid and made me expect some good old room-based puzzle solving gameplay. Unfortunatelly, the presentation is an instant turn-off. Both visuals as well as sound feel very amateurish and are far from coherent and polished. This is not to say that good visuals and sound are necessary for an interesting game. I have no problem at all with simple visuals and sound which are done well. The problem is - as so often - when the developer(s) overestimate their abilities and try to do something which they cannot do well. It's okay to aim low and do that well. Its not okay to aim too high and fail at that. In this case, all visuals of the game lack contrast (this makes me wonder if they were perhaps done on a quite decalibrated screen). On still screenshots it still looks acceptable, but as soon as one plays the game it overally feels quite jerky. The sound in turn is dynamically very overcompressed and sounds clippressed. In summary, the presentation feels like many parts thrown together which however do not really feel coherent and seamless. Most importantly, the presentation does not know the word "subtle" - saturation, luminance and loudness do only know "full on" and "zero". 2008-11-21T19:28:06+00:00 0 275 2

Solid idea, lacks polished presentation

2008-11-21T19:38:26+00:00 665 Lyx