Dangles

A much deeper, more balanced ARPG compared to Diablo III and certainly a better spiritual successor to Diablo II. The vibe is dark and griity much like D2 and the skill tree is vast and intertwining across every class. Currency is now dealt in useful items, eliminating player generated markets (such as the SoJ) and no god awful auction houses. Best of all, it's F2P and not P2W (micro-transactions only give you cosmetics and stash tabs). Definitely worth your time if you feel jaded by the disappointment of D3.

The good: Exceptional game design and game mechanics. Far better than the repetitive drawl of previous AC games. The RPG and open world elements are fantastic and the character animations and facial expressions are very professional and well executed. From the 30 minute credit sequence at the end, you can tell that a lot went into this game. The Bad: Story. The AC series suffers from the same issues with plot that Mass Effect had. It was too ambitious for it's own good and the creative team could not handle how large the universe became after 5 games, novels, tie-in short films (AC: Embers) and others. (Begin spoilers) There are a number of plot holes that are difficult to ignore. The brotherhood is global right? Where are they when Desmond's story is being told? If he's so important why is he helped by only 3 people? Ont he same note, Achilles "let the brotherhood decay". Where were the international assassins that could help rebuild it? It seems like the brotherhood is poorly organized and has not central base of operations. This is the only explanation. What do the Templars want with the pieces of Eden if they just want the world to end? They should just find a bunker , hoard the power sources and let it happens. Their motives are a unclear as the Assassins. Finally, the ending was as disappointing and confusing as Mass Effect's. Desmond just dies and Juno drops a quick line that signals a potential sequel. That's it. I really wish I could give this game a positive rating, but the plot was butchered due to overly ambitious writers.

I hate to review games based on their business models, but Tribes: Ascend is just another low quality production with extremely generic maps (no interacts with environment available), mediocre technical work and low production value on top of being a traditional F2P. While the main complaint about F2P is the P2W (pay-to-win) argument, it isn't reason it's bad. F2P models generally feel cheap because in most cases it is. Low production value has always been a hallmark of F2P games with the exception of those made by Valve (TF2 and DOTA2).

This game is suitable for those new to MTG, those who **** at MTG, and those who hate trying to find physical players to play against. There isn't a huge amount of content, but the base game (no DLC currently) is a mere 10 bucks. It makes learning the game fun and progressive, which is great for beginners as I mentioned. The lack of deck customization is expected and warranted, especially since there aren't that many cards in this game to begin with. If you are looking to play full scale MTG, stick with Magic Online; you will however spend just as much money buying boosters digitally as you would through physical booster packs.