Dream_Chaser

This is just one of those games where you can tell games journalists, the so called "professionals" are full of it, likely full of the money they're stuffed with to write their reviews, something that indie developers can't do. Look at those reviews, just look at them, now compare those with reviews from the same sources of puzzle games with AAA puzzle games that are markedly worse. - This is a fantastic little game, it has character, and it has charm, the developers clearly cared about what they were creating and the puzzles are a lot of fun. What we need to realise is that we don't need a commercially branded character to enjoy a game or find a cute little game hero charismatic. It's just kind of sad that this game is getting 70%s instead of 90%s because the character is an unknown rather than, say, Mario or Pokemon. What a sad state of affairs.

Brink is a case of: "Hey, that's a bag of great ideas, there!" Except they've stuffed them all into one game, and the execution of the ideas is really poor. The single-player drags it down further with bots that ignore their duty as medic, run into walls, and generally act less intelligent than the old Quake II bots. I haven't seen AI that poor in a game for a long time. Then there's the parkour system, which is very selective in regards to what it allows you to parkour with. You have two things that look identical? One might allow a parkour dash over it, one might not. It's a mess, really. It's good ideas weighed down by **** execution and having too many ideas in there in the first place which would've been better saved for other, better games, and superior developers. Check out the GiantBomb.com quick look on it, it's worth watching.

I've updated my review to point out that you should be careful of whom you trust in regards to reviews of this game. Many people clearly didn't get very far at all, this game was just too much for them, and I can prove it. Read on if you're interested! Identical levels? Nonsense, there are a bunch of alien worlds, all of which are vividly different and amazingly creative. Sometimes you visit old worlds again but they have new visual identities and new content to explore. Characters only have three abilities? This is only true within the first hour (yes, hour, as in one) of the game. You do get a party of three, so there's 9 abilities right there, and you get three more on top of that. So there you have 12 abilities, all of which you have to use in the field to be successful. Less selection than other ARPGs? I think not, as you can now hopefully see. And this isn't even going into the stat depth of how aside from your equipped items you also get the catalyst grid which upgrades you in certain ways on the field and can be chained together to create even more powerful teams. The character creation system is a glorified inventory screen? No, it isn't. If you have any imagination whatsoever then there are tools provided to hugely customise your heroes beyond the equipment you can give to them. You can turn stat items you find into detail items for greater customisation. Obviously those complaining didn't play the game for long enough to discover the detail system. You have to regrind the earlier levels a lot? Not really, no. You only have to if you're amazingly awful at handling tactical combat scenarios (and there is strategy involved in this game, which becomes more noticeable as time goes on). Using the right team and the correct approach as to how you should attack your foes will determine your victory far more than how you grind. Grinding is tossed in as an option for those who're really horrible at combat tactics and think every scenario can be solved with click-rushing in. You might be able to do that in Diablo but this isn't Diablo, it's a more cerebral experience than that. And some people are likely just trying the rush-in approach, completely failing (of course), and then blaming the game. Typical. Diablo II has clever level design? Uh... seriously? Most of the time Diablo II was jut a big old box with randomly generated crap inside of it, it wasn't intelligent level design at all. All the worlds in this game are hand-crafted and worth seeing, and offer some interesting opportunities for intelligent tactical play, which is something that Diablo II never did. Diablo II was click, click, click. You were never offered support or hindrance by your environment in Diablo II, but you are in Darkspore. In Darkspore there are wonderful ways to approach fights tactically, getting the drop on your opponents before they realise what's hit them, and you have environmental obstacles that slow you down and/or empower your foes. Not to mention the marvellous ambush areas. Tell me how Diablo II has more intelligent level design again? And there's combat in a combat-oriented game? Gasp! Who could have imagined /that/? What a disaster! A game actually does what it's supposed to do, what it says on the tin, oh, the horror. Did someone pick this up expecting the Sims 3? Seriously? Clearly, you need to be wary of whom you trust. This is a great game but some people just aren't... equipped well enough to handle it. The question is... are you?