Megatanis

My previous review disappeared for reasons I ignore, so here we go again! Reviewers score: 86 Users score: 4.8 Another example of professional reviewers living on another planet. Who are these guys? It's 2015, anyone with an internet connection and a brain can write a videogame review. How can 20 guys be so influential, I mean what they write moves a lot of money, this is fishy. And it's not the first time. Having said this, Fallout 4 is at best a mediocre fps. Boring as hell, average to poor graphics, imho poor gameplay. I'm not a huge fan of fps but I can appreciate a good one, and Fallout 4 isn't. I am sure there is much better out there for those who love this genre. As an rpg and most of all as a Fallout game, it's horrible. Dialogues are a joke, consequences of your decisions are negligible, world is inconsistent and bland. You'll have power armor and enough stuff to invade China in 30mins. Yep, power armor in half an hour baby, because why the f*** not right? Skills are gone (gone!), replaced by a bland and (you guessed) boring system that transforms everything in a perk, and allows you to increase your main stats with ease. Game has become a casual shooter in a vaguely post atomic world. The story is very low quality and uninspired, voice acting takes away more than adding, npcs are immortal, everything is linear as hell. In addition, I had technical issues and had to tinker with the .ini files to fix a crash when going fullscreen. Wow it was hard to do worst than Fo3, and I actually liked FNV and had hopes after it. I literally couldn't play this game more than an hour. What a pity.

This game is pure genius. It would be useless to describe it, it's a sort of rpg-strategic-adventure text based game, and it's awesome. You just need to take your time with it, read, and don't mind the fact it's an "old style" game. This game will give you "vibes", but only if you are "tuned".

And once again..reviewers average score 6.8 (meh); user average score 8.6 (very nice!) I find this game extremely enjoyable, poured many hours in it, with its simple graphics and addictive gameplay. Exploration, rpg, space battles, all for what? Ten bucks? Awesome. Thank you Russia.

Sid Meier's last good game (and it was very good..) was Civilization IV. Ace patrol was nice, yeah. Beyond Earth is boring, it's a reskin of Civ5 (which I absolutely disliked), and as a successor of Alpha Centauri it doesn't even get close. I still remember those secret project videos, absolutely brilliant. Alpha Centauri was (is) a much better game. Beyond Earth is not a terrible game, I just find it uninteresting, boring and easy. Would deserve a 5 but I'm angry, because I know the Man can do a lot more, even though it's ten years things got a bit..streamlined.

The recent trend of dumbing down great games and grabbing your money ASAP continues. This game is sort of enjoyable for the first few hours. Then you start hitting the first walls. I was lured by my love for the JA series, been a great fan of JA2. - this game is NOT f2p, and I don't mean it's "better" if you pay, you literally can't play more advanced missions without paying for the "full" content. - content is scarce, missions repetitive, maps dull and inconsistent - you will soon find yourself farming the same missions since standard rewards are not even enough to pay for contract renewal of your mercs (I stopped playing for a couple of months, went back to it, and ALL my mercs' contracts had expired. Renewing ONE is 80k$. Reward for a full set of 5 high end missions is like 69K$.Good luck trying to raise the money with the one guy you still have left) Loot is garbage, selling prices are ridiculous, guess what? shell out real money, so you can pay you mercs. Absolute trash. -tactically and strategically childish, few options, badly designed, very frustrating. - PVP is a JOKE. NO COOP. I REPEAT: NO COOP. Just deathmatches which are completely unrelated to the general campaign. Alliances are useless, no territory control, no item exchange between players, no money, no NOTHING. Interactions between players is practically non existing. Hell even the chat system ****. There is this wierd "warzone" system where you basically farm missions that pop up timed based, and that's it. The WHOLE multiplayer aspect is really shallow and irritating. Would go as far as saying this is NOT a mmo game. Player base has already collapsed, old players leaving and new ones turned away from the money grabbing attitude and shallowness of the whole thing. ****? why do they allow corps/developers to do this? Once again, a very sad day for true gamers out there. Guys, don't give your money to these sort of games, or we'll just keep seeing the same s**t for ever and ever. Gets a 1 just because it made me want to play a fully modded JA2 again.

Very very entertaining game! As always, the best stuff never receives the right amount of advertisement. This game is paradise for unhappy civ fans, a true spiritual successor to the glorious Master of Magic. And I don't say this lightly. Without doubt an extremely well thought game, polished, fun, very nice graphics, replayable, lots of mods. Doesn't get a 10 because of lack of multiplayer. **** seems to be one of those odd developers that don't believe in MP (not even hotseat or lan, which would have been perfectly doable with this one). Reminds me of how disappointed I was to discover that galciv2 (again **** and again an excellent game) didn't support MP. Oh well, it's still a very good single player experience.

Battle for Wesnoth is one of those games you'll thank your gods for having discovered. Yet another proof that an excellent game doesn't necessarily need to cost 50million$. Fun, testing, graphically pleasing (although you won't care much about graphics), tons of mods, huge replayability and, icing on the cake, very entertaining multiplayer. **** it's free Get it, you won't regret it.

YES!! Finally, this is pure genius. A light in the dark.. take this modern uber hyped crap games! The proof that a good game is based on a good concept, passion, love for your work. No need for super graphics and 2gb cutscenes, no need for a 2000$ rig to run this gem. All those multimillion developers/corporations should be ASHAMED, faster than light is simply perfect. And it is unbelievable how much fun you'll have playing it.

eheheh reviews average score: 8.1 user average score: 4.0 I hope this is the final word on the "are official reviewers biased or are they not" issue. Rome total war 2 on release is unplayable, simple as that. I am using a 2.7ghz dual core, 4gb ram and 1gb video card (specified RECOMENDED requirements on the box, not minimum) at medium graphics (options are from low to ultra high, medium is 2/5). Loading times are unbearable. Whole thing is glitchy as hell, on this same rig I could play Shogun 2 at decent graphics and reasonable loading times. Really, do they test this stuff before release, or do they think we all have a 2000$ last gen pc? So, not able to judge game (the few things I saw are nothing special compared to previous iterations) since it is literally unplayable. Needless to say I play total war series since shogun **** well I guess I'll have to find a better job so I can afford a rig that can run RTW2. I'll give it a 1 because of the latin quote at the end of the cool (but nothing special) intro

**** this is a tough one. I am a huge fan of the EU and CIV series, been playing since EU2 and the very first civ game, pure genius. They did with EU4 more or less what they did to the civ series: streamlined. If this is good for you, then you'lll ike EU4. Personally, I consider civ5 to be one of the worst pieces of crap to have ever graced my HD, an insult to intelligence. With EU4, I am not very sure. To understand why, one must have some sort of previous knowledge/experience of EU titles. The game is playable, and moderately enjoyable. Many dynamics have been completely changed, such as economy sliders (economy sliders?), the ever present money vs inflation vs tech investment "thing" (gone), trade is a sort of mystery I still have to figure out (but it's waaaay less relevant than in the older titles) and a very heavy reliance on a sort of point system determining tech progress and national ideas development (points generated are determined by your leader's skills, so you basically pray for a good leader). Everything is easier, simpler and more direct than in the older titles. Which does'nt mean I think it's better. I had perfectly accustomed to the old system, so these changes I view as unnecessary at worst and marginal at best. What I may say is that certainly the game tries to play like a classic EU title, and ends up being a slighlty less interesting "adventure" than in the previous installments. Of course there will be mods and patches, so I guess the game is going to change a lot. Suffice to say that my very first game at EU4 I chose to play the Pope, 3 starting provinces and lousy economy. Anyone who has played a EU game knows what I'm talking about. Well, after 50-60 years, I had all of Italy from Modena to Palermo. Core status and culture can be changed rather effortlessly, making expansion easy. I found all very very easy. Oh and of course, welcome to steam. I hope you are not bothered by things like not being able to play a LAN game with your brother sitting next to you without passing through steam, or having to read every time you start the game things like :"BUY NATIONAL MONUMENTS NOW!! ENTER OPEN STORE!!" which is kind of lame in my book especially in a strategic title (and btw, so I don't get national monuments if I don't pay?). At the end of the day, right now EU4 is a blander, less interesting and VERY streamlined version of EU3. A completely modded EU3 is a much more "mature" game. Time will tell if this game's aim was to change the genre and revive it in a constructive way, or to allow people to play EU on their iphones or something.

Aaaah yes..XCOM. So, are you seriously telling me Sid freaking Meier and Firaxis are redoing my favourite game ever? Wow, I thought at first, I'm in for a real treat. Not. To keep it simple, after more than 10 years(15?), I expected more. After civ5 one had to see this coming, since good old Sid seems to have a new philosophy: "streamlining". Oh you gotta learn to fear this word. It basically means they are taking a great game, stripping it of most of what today is apparently considered "complex" by the average gamer, and pumping it up with cool graphics. This new xcom is not a terrible game, to be honest. It is playable, it is also vaguely enjoyable for some time. But after you stop and think that the intro cutscene probably takes more space on your HD than the whole original game UFO defence, you start wondering. So, lets see. 1) No random maps. It does get old, fast. Aliens are placed in the exact same places. So, if you get the same map, it's a breeze to complete (and it's very boring). 2) more or less the same tech tree as in the original UFO. Now this was a letdown. So you have the usual laser techs, autopsies, some fighter techs. There are two more armors (which you will never use if you know whats good for planet earth) compared to the original, and that's as "modern" as it gets. Oh yeah and plasma, the mid-late game uber tech. I remember not developing plasma in the old Ufo just because I liked the idea of human soldiers in their blue personal armors and armed with mankind's best laser wapons, so yeah, I'm doing the same in this one. Game is easy anyway. 3) No inventory for soldiers. I'll pause a sec here. So now you may equip one main weapon, one secondary weapon, and ONE extra item. One. Extra. Item. Next time you have to decide if you want to bring ONE grenade OR wear a nanofiber vest under your armor, just remember the magic word: streamlining. It's not b******t, it's streamlined. See how easier it is to accept. Streamlined, I'm starting to like the sound of this. 4) No more Time Units. Now, this is sort of a meh. It's different from the original, not necessarily worst. It makes the game VERY boardgamish, like I don't know, bloodbowl, or necromunda. I like bloodbowl and necromunda. Actually, one of the games that comes to my mind A LOT while playing this XCOM is the pc version of bloodbowl. THe game also plays a lot like a blood bowl game, including the "hmm should I or should I not blitz that guy" feeling (if you played bloodbowl then you now what I mean. If not, well go play bloodbowl! Now!). 5) Only one base. Very streamlined. 6) max of 6 squad members at a time. Oh now this is SO streamlined! Old XCOM was like 14? 16? and NO, it was not tedious, it was damn fun. It's a war, you are saving earth from an alien invasion! and you get a plane that can carry only six men?? 7) overall tactical combat is faster and cooler (cooler, not better..),and, yes you guessed it, streamlined! no more crouching, aim or snap shots (or auto), you got cameras following your dudes all over the place, cutscenes when you get out of the skyranger, cutscenes when you first meet a group of aliens, cutscenes when you leave the mission, cutscenes when you RETURN TO BASE after the aforementioned ****, I'm not kidding, there is a cutscene for almost every tech, autopsy, live alien interrogation. Only cutscenes in this game probably take more space on my HD than all the games I played in the 1990-2000 period. 8) soldier promotion. A random class is awarded to your soldiers upon completing their first level. Cool, I though at first. So if my rookie kills his first alien from a distance, he'll become a sniper for having demonstrated his particular aptitude with long range etc etc.. no, not at all. It's random. So no more "this guy is a sniper because you decide his stats are good for a sniper class. No, he IS a sniper, he can only use a sniper rifle. Also, when soldiers level they increase their 4 stats (old ufo were like 8 but hey! streamlined!). So bottom line, not an awful game, it has it's moments. As a successor of the greatest classic series of all times, it fails. Some would say miserably. Will be all but forgotten in a few months, while UFO and Terror from the deep will proudly sit in my pc forever, reminding me of how scary and hard and awesome saving earth in 640x480 may be. So tell you what Firaxis, I wanted to be wise and analyze and examine and think this out before voting. But then I decided to streamline my thoughts, so you get a 3 (because I played it a bit and it's not total crap) When in a tactical simulation you may choose between 15 hairstyles for your soldiers but you can't crouch, something's terribly wrong. Or streamlined. p.s. Firaxis is paying royalties to the Warhammer 40k brand I hope. ALL your soldiers and equipment look like space marine stuff. Even in their light beginner crappy armor and armed with a lousy assault gun, they look like uber cool Ultramarines with bolters blazing

I don't know where to start. I grew up with civ, it was the very first game I played when i was a kid. It had, as most of the products in that time, an aura of legend around it. I learned history from civ. All of a sudden, I wanted to know who exactly was Shaka of the Zulus. My mind expanded imagining alternate histories. When you played civ, you got smarter. Yes of course it had problems, it was just a game after all. But one of those games you would forgive anything, simply because it has something magical around it. Civ 4 is, as many have pointed out here as well, the pinnacle of the series. Again, of course it had aspects which could have been improved, and btw the Civ series was NEVER the hardest, toughest or most complicated strategy game out there. Try playing the Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron series, or many others, and you'll see what I mean. Civ has always been a coulourful, entertaining gem, a perfect mix of micro and macro managing, even though the AI was never any good, and some mechanics were certainly improvable. Now we have this..I don't even know how to define it. So, Dear Sid, all of a sudden, after 20 years of pure genius, you decided that people saying "oh no, I have to actually research a tech that will allow me to build transport ships and THEN I must load my units on them?? BOORING" were the ones to listen, while those that made it possible for you to be in business today, those that bought and supported your products in a time when even owning a PC was something (I don't live in the US by the way), were to be insulted in this way. For the respect I still have towards your past wonders, I'll just stop it here, because you know what I'm talking about, the negative comments are really not necessary. You, above everyone else in this world, know perfectly well what has happened to the Civ franchise. I firmly believe a compromise between complexity/Traditional civ (for the old fans) and simplicity/moar money (from sales/ influx of newcomers) would have been perfectly doable, and it would have been accepted by everyone. To screw up a game like civ in this way is totally unbelievable. So bottom line, sure there is nostalgia involved, but I tried to give a balanced judgement. Civ 5 is a shallow, unintersting, boring game. Graphics are only marginally better than civ4, and who cares about "amazing" graphics anyway (in a turn based strategy game). It seems to be riddled with bugs. Gameplay choices are reduced to a minimum, illogical and outright broken mecahisms are everywhere. And, of course, it's a game for 12 years old kids. On top of this, since it's a successor to a great series (and because it's called CIV FIVE), old fans will inevitably compare it to the previous titles. And this is not good. You know it, I know it, everyone that should knows it. The ones that don't, probably have no idea who Sun Tzu was or where the hell is Costantinople, and are wondering why they can't headshot Montezuma, so why bother. You just want their money. Right? ps I just hope you are spending more money to buy these "The best Civ ever!!!" reviews (LOL) than what you made by selling the game. Maybe when you'll realise that alienating what were probably among the most loyal videogamers in history (civ fans) was a bad marketing decision, you'll see your error. But it will be too late Quoque tu, Sid

What a pity. I played all the XCOM, fallout, jagged alliance etc games, and I must say I really enjoyed them. Especially the xcom series, with that mix of tactics and strategy, economic management and R&D, so freaking awesome. And JA2, I discovered this game quite "late", and wow what a gem! Fun, difficult, nice humor, very immersive. Jagged Alliance Back in Action has some very serious flaws, for a tactical squad level game. 1. No fog of war. Are you kidding? no, really. No fog of war. Try to understand the deep meaning of this statement. Try thinking xcom without fow. Try to imagine a tactical engagement where you are aware of EVERY single enemy position right from the start. Magic! Telepathy! ****? 2. Inventory management. What inventory management? to sell items, you have to select every single merc and talk individually with the merchant. If I want to SWAP items between my mercs, I can't do it from the strategic map. You must load a tactical map and do it from there in real time. Try thinking when you have I dunno, 8 mercs, ten maps full of items, and you have to manage this mess. Of course, no sector inventory, so you have to load maps and run around fetching stuff left over from that time when you were too loaded to carry other suff away. For the first time in my life, I disregarded drops from enemies in pure frustration, since if you don't pick up something as soon as you kill an enemy, well good luck running around the whole map. Not fun. 3. Militia: now this is really ridiculous. Apply all that was said for inventory management, and now imagine that you must equip EVERY SINGLE militia (auto generated guys that fight to defend your territories when you are not there) manually, by giving them weapons and armor. Tedious is an euphemism. It literally takes hours. But don't worry, militia is useless in any case, you're much better off just selling your stuff to equip your mercs. I don't know, instead of going forward in terms of innovation, immersion, gameplay, in one word FUN, this game is a huge step back if compared to JA2. And since it's called "Jagged Alliance back in action" **** are gonna get comparisons. JA2 is what, 10 years old?? shame shame ****'t give a higher score to a TACTICAL game with no fow, sorry. Yeah graphics are ok. So they destroyed the fallout series, crippled heroes of might and magic, utterly smashed to pulp that miracle **** that was civilization, and really did a bad job with Jagged Alliance.. now what? oh right, xcom! i would not be surprised if it was a spaghetti western in a post atomic world where you must hunt down dinosaurs. **** it's 3D!