Parvarteshwar

I'm going to put aside issues with the DRM and the cloud saving, the latter of which will probably be fixed in the future. I'm simply going to give my opinion of the game because that is really all the matters. That said, DON'T BUY THIS GAME. Gameplay is fast paced but very small scale. Picture sitting in a sandbox...literally, the sandbox that you sat in as a kid is probably about the size of their cities. You want a huge metropolis? Too bad but for an extra £20 you can get the European Cities Set! I have no idea why you have to pay an extra £20 for a few game maps and a dozen or so new buildings but apparently EA have a damn good reason. There are a few interface innovations that take away a lot of the micro-management that plagued the two former games in the series but you will quickly run out of things to do and I personally was bored after a day of the single player. Multiplayer is really where they placed all their eggs and that is good fun if you're playing with the right people, but it's not that much different from one of the social media sim cities that are free. The reliability of the servers is bad for one person, with 3 or more it's impossible to get a really good game going so you are forced to stay small scale. Because of the online DRM you can't set up an LAN connection so I don't see this issue being solved anytime soon. All-in-all it's a steaming pile of that costs £45 (£65 for European Cities) and it's worth about £0.01. I looked at their website which claims they have won 26 PC game awards...I'm absolutely at a loss for where they got that figure, though many were given pre-release. It's just an example of how corrupt and deceptive is this thing called Gaming Journalism. Stay away from this game and away from anyone claiming to be a professional game critic.

Now that a few years have passed I can say Dragon Age 2 is actually a pretty good game. Sure, it's not an epic game like Origins but it's still pretty good. The combat is fast paced, highly varied from class to class and even from character to character, and much more frequent. It's a lot of fun to select spells, switch characters, select attacks, switch characters, complete cross-class combo and watch health bars plummet. It's a huge improvement on Origins and you have a lot more control over your companions. The Tactics menu is even improved so you can focus most of your attention on a single character and the AI will still perform adequately up to Hard mode. Dialogue is really improved. Say what you want about the Dialogue Wheel, it has made it a lot easier to choose a response and your no longer surprised when an NPC gets angry at something you said. in Origins you didn't always know when a particular phrase was sarcasm or animosity but now it's clearer and you can make better choices. You don't generally have five or six responses but the ones you do have are just as sufficient to make your impact. The player character is now pre-set and fully voiced in dialogue. This does take away from the 'create your own experience' aspect but Bioware has always had good dialogue and they did not disappoint. You can still role-play as **** Johnson, now he is **** Hawke which in my mind is just as juvenilely hilarious. Your companions are just as varied and can be just as interesting as in Origins but they have a lot more companion quests and they will no longer get pissed off and leave if you do something they don't like. You now have a Friend/Rival meter which offers bonuses for being at one end of the extreme, you can even Romance a character that has a -100 opinion. There are now more Romances and you can have several without other companions getting too jealous. Ferelden was a closed world with a few dozen maps spanning a continent but Kirkwall (not the wonderful tourist destination in Orkney) is comparatively small. It has about the same number of maps but they are meshed into a single city and therefore it feels much smaller than it actually is and it fails to create the illusion of a free world like Origins. You do have a lot more quests so now you will revisit the same map a dozen times which does get tedious well before the final chapter. You also never leave the city. I think they did this because they wanted you to feel attached and care for the outcome of its inhabitants. To a degree they succeeded but it is still lacking compared to the first game. The story is a lot more low key than Origins which is where many people get pissed off. Instead of destroying an unstoppable horror from consuming a continent as the leader of a mysterious and storied order, you are just a poor refugee who pulls him/herself up by his/her bootstraps to become the most powerful person in town. You can either be help an independent city-state remain free and happy or you can destroy it. It's closer to The Witcher than Origins but it gets the job done and is interesting enough to keep you going. Each chapter has a different goal and a different theme so even though you never leave the city it does change dramatically. Just don't expect to feel like you've saved the world but do expect to feel like you've created a city. And the most important aspect of any video game: Immersion. Yes, it's easy to get lost in Hawke and the voice actor does a really good job of reciprocating my intent for each given response. The world is still Dragon Age and there is a lot of depth there, just don't expect to sink as far as you did in Origins. In conclusion, it's a good game with a lot more positives than faults and most importantly it is fun. It has the 'Middle Game' problem where they don't want to introduce the big finale but they need a lot of filler and for filler Dragon Age 2 is the best there is.

There are two main games in the WW2 RTS genre; Company of Heroes and Men at War. The former is by far the easiest. I rate Men of War's difficulty at about 8/10 on Hard difficulty, it's not impossible to beat but if you're playing on the highest difficulty setting and don't have any friends for co-op you WILL find it impossible unless you are a professional gamer. So you might be thinking this game would make a great challenge, and yes it is, but not in gameplay. The challenge lies in mastering the faulty interface and micromanaging your units. Some battles might have hundreds of units and trying to do this gets extremely frustrating, especially because your units are highly expendable and will die like flies if you leave them alone during an attack. There are no controls for coordinating your attacks or directing your units other than to point and click, and you will be doing a lot of pointing and clicking because if you leave it up to the AI you will lose immediately. This is made more awkward by the lack of an interactive mini-map, you will have to click, scrolls, click, click, scroll and it gets tedious really fast. The game does have its positives; the micromanagitis means your have a huge influence on the battle and placing the right unit in the right place will often make a big difference. There is a large range of army, motorised and artillery units at your disposal and there are often several ways around a problem with different units and difference tactics. It's fun to out-manoeuvre, out gun and out flank a defending army but the bad interface slows down gameplay and breaks the flow, tearing your out of that immersive General's chair. It really does feel like your struggling more against the game's mechanics than the actual game. Despite all this, the game deserves a relatively good score because it is a good game. It is unique, fresh and for once it doesn't feel like someone is holding your hand guiding your through they game experience. It's just lacking a lot of polish and a bit of story. If you are veteran of Company of Heroes or strategy games then go for Men of War, if not be prepared for a learning curve resembling brick wall but lot of fun to be had if you do manage to climb over it.

This is one of the best city building games on the market. It is made great because of the original setting, the lack of an arbitrary currency and the very simple economic model: farms provide food, food goes to brick-makers and bricks go to your buildings. There are several other classes that allow your society to be better governed and there are many buildings which ensure the smooth operation of your city. You must use these to make sure your inhabitants are happy and fulfil all their needs, as your city grows so grow the needs of your subjects. Ensuring that all these needs are met can be frustrating, especially concerning religion, and there are about a dozen deities. A shrine to each is needed within walking distance! This means you will need to build temples like hotcakes and that doesn't leave a lot of room for your other buildings. There are many resources and most of these are automatically gathered but a few can be micromanaged. These are very valuable and allow you to make monuments, keep your citizens happy or trade with other cities. There are many off-map sites that provide several resources and usually cost food, so even if a resource exists on your map it could be cheaper and easier to just build more farmers rather than constructing a resource collection infrastructure. Combat is non-existent and its substitute consists of sending your soldiers to an area off map, they will win or lose depending on how much your have invested in their training and equipment. Occasionally small raiding parties will raid your city but they do no damage to your buildings, simply stealing goods and food. This makes your citizens angry but you can completely ignore invading armies so long as you have a decent city defence. You are given objectives and there are about 15 main campaign missions, as well as 3 from the expansion and 5 user-made and bonus maps. This can give you 50-75 hours of game time but about half-way through each mission the gameplay gets repetitive. Regardless, over 30 hours gives you a lot of fun and variety, but it also ignites a healthy interest in Egyptian history. I would advise you to do a bit of research after each mission, it puts the scenario into a historical perspective and allows you to impress your significant with your uncanny knowledge the next time you visit a museum!

I looked over at the Critics Review and I honestly had to question if they and I were playing the same game. My consensus is that flashy graphics automatically give you a 7 on most of these sites and the rest is just jelly on the burnt toast. The game is real time strategy with tactical unit based combat...basically Total War. Unfortunately it doesn't rip enough off Total War to be a good game, however because it fits so closely in their genre it will ceaselessly be compared to a vastly better game, even though Medieval 2 was their weakest title in the series. It adds RPG elements which allow you to customize your units King Arthur style but these don't really add anything to the game as you will only choose the attack or armour bonuses. Your units are unbalanced and cumbersome, their strength ranges from almost indestructible to absolutely worthless. The campaign missions become repetitive and disconnected, they are historically accurate...relatively, but the units seem to be more varied in fantasy. And some of these fantasy units are so overpowered that they throw any sense of balance out the portcullis. A lesson learned for Neocore games, people will tolerate unbalanced gameplay as long as it is based in realism, but when it's complete fantasy it ruins gameplay. The economy is non-existent, inventory is restrictive, and factions are uninteresting and offer token rewards. As a matter of fact factions are absent on the game map aside from the Saracens, so think of what little political intrigue there was in Medieval 2 and multiply it by 0. The selling point of this game is the graphics, which on medium to lower systems will look terrible anyways, besides a game should never try to sell itself based on graphics alone, that's why we have movies. If you're looking for more Total War experience in new and different settings there are literally hundreds of user made Mods out there. Instead of playing this game I would recommend you support the modding community and in the process enjoy a superior gaming experience.

The biggest problem with modern City Builders is they have a control radius around buildings, exempli gratia: if you place a house more than 20m from a workplace then the inhabitants would rather emigrate than walk their lazy asses over there. While this adds some standardisation and forces a high degree of planning it also leads to a crisis of space, with its micromanagement being central to the success of your city. Grand Ages: Rome unfortunately commits two city building sins. One it does not attempt to break out of this mould and your experience will therefore revolve around squeezing all your buildings as close together as possible. And two, it is a city building game about Rome, from which there are about a dozen to chose. It does have many positive points: Diverse array of buildings, an excellent campaign which is also historically accurate, detailed models, and a good combat system. The resource management is also very good, with the production of goods always being balanced by a reasonable the demand and the trade gives ample opportunity for monetary income. But in the end, your cities will always be highly restricted and specially constrained. If you're bored with Caesar IV and looking for something more historically accurate then Grand Ages Rome will be good for you but otherwise don't bother.

One of the great classic games. Excellent writing, superb character development, numerous, varied and enjoyable quests. The world is large and detailed, the characters engaging and memorable. The antagonist is one of the most notorious in gaming and the setting is sufficiently epic for a Greek tragedy. The game is not without it's flaws though. At over a decade old, it's visuals have not aged well and many mods are required to bring it up to the present day, and even then it's not going to be on the same level as current generation graphics. The game is also the third instalment of a four part series so if you haven't played the previous two games you will be a little lost. The game never penalises you but it is designed for an audience from 1999 when the first two games were still popular. There are also a few balance issues with certain classes, with some being completely useless and others being super-powered. But these problems are quickly drowned away, and the masterpiece tells the story of the god-child with epic brilliance. Oh, and the game is very fun.

This is a great gem in the Hall of RTS gaming history, it combines the historical setting of the previous Age of Empires games and adds a dash of fantasy and mythology and comes up with a highly enjoyable gaming experience. The basics of AOE gameplay are present, you gather resources, build buildings, research technology, and recruit units in order to gain and edge and eventually eliminate your opponent/s and all those areas are well-balances, easy to manage, and fun. You have three civilizations, each with different technology trees, bonuses, buildings and architecture styles, units, and pantheons. Each of those are subdivided into 3 different categories based on the patron deity, this confers a bonus in a particular field and gives access to a smaller pantheon of lesser gods. As you advance from age to age you chose one of two gods and the choices available to you are based on your patron deity, these lesser gods confer even more bonuses, unique technologies, a specific mythical unit, and a god power which can be used once and range on a scale of helpful to game-ending. This leads to each game having a huge potential for diversity and each civilization is able to use their particular advantage to be equally competitive. The most unique feature is the myth units which are like regular units but extremely strong and more powerful, they are a bane to all regular units and can therefore be countered with Heroes, stronger regular units. Heroes are either limited in number, expensive, or specific only to myth units and are therefore managed as cautiously as the myth units themselves but in return they can perform special tasks or get special bonuses. The original campaign is long and enjoyable, with a diverse array of missions and an interesting story. The AI is one of the best in a strategy game and will progressively become more difficult as the level is increased. It is unique in that it doesn't reward the AI with cheats but instead increases their speed and use of tactics, therefore economic warfare is an entirely viable option but the AI is equally as adept in this regard. The expansion is lackluster. It adds a new and unbalanced civilization, a few new technologies, and a campaign which provides a few good maps but lacks any depth or effective story. It adds a new unit, the Titan, which is available on random and in multiplayer maps. It is an extremely strong unit with an extremely large attack, so much so that the first civilization to acquire one is effectively the winner. The only defence against a Titan is another Titan, which means 3-way matches are essentially a waste of time. But aside from the expansion the game is as close to perfect as you will find in this genre. It is full of classic game-play, innovative, unique, and fun. A must for any PC gamers collection.

Compared to the original and the third Europa Universalis, EU Rome can feel small and lacking in the number of factions. The map only covers Europe, the Levant and Mesopotamia, and North Africa and the number of factions is dependent on the era of Roman history which you are playing. And instead of being able to play from AUC, you're earliest starting point is around the Pyrrhic War to the formation of the Empire, not exactly the entire history of the Roman Empire but it's still plenty of time for a hell of a lot of game play. The factions are condensed and only available from this 300 year time period, so depending on your starting time their can be dozens of factions to chose from, or less than 5. You have a lot more control of your country's politics and dynasty, in fact so much control that if you are a large country you will be bombarded with messages and decisions. In the long run the decisions can make a big difference but for the player new to the series be prepared for a rough introduction which is made worse by a lack of a tutorial. I still gave the game a good score because the basics of EU are present: intuitive diplomacy, complex trade and economic systems, diverse military units in Risk-style combat, political intrigue, and historical accuracy (as far as factions and starting positions are concerned). Everything from EU1 is here and improved upon except the afore mentioned small map and lack of diversity of factions, and because of the excellent dynasty system it plays like a faster Crusader Kings. If you are new to the series and haven't gotten the previous game references, I would recommend EU 3 as it is easier to get into and for which there is a lot more assisting material around the intertubes, but if you are a vet of EU3 or other Paradox games and are looking for more goodness to gorge upon than EU Rome is perfect and offers hundreds of hours of Roman enjoyment...

A decent and well polished game that is let down by slow game-play and a lack of strategic depth. This is designed for people who love RPG type game but have always wanted to be on the other side of the action, as the omnipotent quest-giver pulling the strings of the hapless heroes. It does this very well and in many ways it makes you feel more like a king than most other strategy games out there. The game is a huge graphical upgrade from the previous Magesty and it is much more atheistically pleasing than most of Paradox's other titles from the same time period. It is very satirical and full of comedic gems for the RPG fan and it is narrated by an advisor who sounds suspiciously similar to Sean Connery. The gameplay is slow but the speeding can be increased and the start of missions are very repetitive, the game picks up about halfway through each mission and revolve around you ordering your heroes to kill an extremely powerful boss. While your heroes are the most enjoyable part of the game they cannot be directly controlled, which leads to many deaths and lots coin resurrecting them. You control them by offering rewards in gold for defeating a target, guarding an area or exploring the map, and you prioritise based on the amount of coin. Once your heroes accept a quest they will not abandon it until they are dead or it is completed which can lead to an ogre destroying your town while all your heroes are off fighting a rat. You can put them into groups which will work as a team but you cannot coordinate your groups so they will tickle into the boss fight getting eliminated one by one whereas a huge frontal assault would have made it child's play. That said Majesty2 is a well rounded game and it you can perfect your heroes response time it can be very enjoyable indeed.

It's a good game. Not great but enjoyable, especially for a historical fan. The development team for the original Mount and Blade game was insanely small and even though it has grown the Fire and Sword team kept close to the original's roots, therefore the game lacks new-age graphics, voice acting, and complex writing and stories while it does offer unique game play and innovative concepts. It does have a competent RPG systems, the most realistic first-person combat system for a medieval hack and slash, and a huge world. Unlike the previous two games Fire and Sword is in a historical setting, during the Northern Wars and it places the player in the middle of the conflict between the great Eastern Powers as they struggle for dominance over one another. Gunpowder weapons are the new big thing and they are very accurately depicted, slow to reload and unable to hit the broad-side of a barn. So the combat has slowed down a little but again, this is pretty damn close to how actual 17th century battles went. It forces the player to make tactical changes and spend more time leading troops as opposed to fighting and to the game's credit the AI system isn't too bad. Your troops listen to your commands and try to kill who they're supposed to and the opposition will try to defend key positions force you from your defensible positions. If there is an enemy commander they will get even more intelligent and make tactical decisions. That said there isn't much strategy besides that, artillery is non-existent and devastating historical tactics like flanking or Pike and Shot formations don't seem to make much of a difference. The missions are repetitive and boring, however they are the best way to level up and get money, and you will need that money and lots of it. The game's biggest fault is making you trek across the map several times to level up, doing the same 5 things. The interface leaves a lot to be desired, information is not readily available and difficult to come by. NPCs are difficult to find and sometimes offer annoyingly difficult quests while giving very little time to complete, this is made more annoying by the repetitive text and bad conversation interface. Oh and they will always offer the same 5 quests. But as the game progresses it gets easier and more exciting and it eventually progresses into a city-building sim. This is perhaps the most enjoyable part of the game and it is the only way get the best gear and soldiers but costs an insane amount of money which you will have to acquire through the repetitive quest grind. My biggest complaint: AUTOSAVE???? Where the hell is it? There is nothing more annoying than spending 3 hours grinding money, spending tons of cash on the best gear and training for your units, going into battle, getting one-shotted by a marksman from the other side of the map, and having your expensive soldiers die without you, and then having all your stuff taken. I think the Steam record of how much I have played could be half that if you subtract the hours I have wasted by forgetting to save. All in all it's a good game that is let down by the lack of resources in the development phase and poor interface choices. If you enjoyed the previous Mount and Blade games then you will probably like this one but if you are new to the genre you will have a hard time getting into it and an even harder time succeeding.

The Total War series has a history of producing ground-breaking, innovative games that cater specifically to the RTS/strategy fans. Games like Rome and Empire are huge, enjoyable, full of strategic depth, and well polished. Shogun 2 unfortunately fits more into the category of Medieval 2. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad game and it's better than any other RTS game on the market right now, but its just not a great game that deserves the 90 critic score that it has received. This has forced me to sometimes wonder if I'm playing the same game as the critics... The biggest problem I have with the game is that the same problems and bugs that were with Empire are still with this game. Diplomacy is a laughable exercise at best and completely worthless at worst. The best strategy for avoiding war is to not have a border with a country, even valued allies will forget your excellent standing with them and declare war on you if you so much as have a common border and getting a country to accept a diplomatic proposal is almost as bad as pulling teeth. The AI is as painfully stupid as it was in the previous games and I think they realized this and have now made drop-in battles by human players standard, but good luck trying to find someone to play with and finding someone near your difficulty level. But even if you have the coveted luck with the battles the AI is still as stupid as ever on the campaign map and since they don't have monetary restrictions to worry about all strategy goes out the window. It feels like you are playing alone instead of with a worth-while opponent, and if you turn up the difficulty the AI doesn't get better, they are just given more units to throw at you which results in attrition based wars rather than strategic depth. But the AI problems don't just stop with the computer players, be sure to keep an eye on your own soldiers in battle or else they will be more dangerous to your army than the opposition. Archers seem to be particularly guilty of this and if you don't micro-manage them they will tear up your own front lines even more so than the enemies. There was a bug in previous games where your archers wouldn't follow your attack orders, they would simply fire on the closest enemy, that bug is back and as annoying now as it was then. It is almost funny to watch then firing on a **** infantry unit, killing more of your own infantry than the enemy's, while a cavalry unit about to run them down... The units are the same for almost every faction and this means there is very little depth in fielding a varied army, just load up on samurai and send them off to battle, and replenishment is back which means waiting 5 turns in between each battle. Naval battles are back and they are improved, but they are also more boring. Fighting with non-gunpowder vessels when compared to the huge and varied ships-of-the-line from Empire has very little strategy, especially when an entire battle consists of ordering your ships to board the other ships. The graphics are excellent, but that's no surprise as Total War games have always had stellar graphics for their time. The in-game interface is also excellent, it takes some time to get to know it but the wealth of information is a welcome breathe of fresh air from the previous titles. But at the same time the game feels stiff, this may just be because my PC isn't the top of the line but that just means if you don't have the best PC out there you will be greeted with a sticky interface. The game map has plenty of provinces, but it feels small compared to the huge map of Europe from Rome and half the world from Empire. The provinces are also very similar, and though there are special resources they don't really play a huge strategic role other than money. Japan is a thin country and therefore the strategy is the same with almost every faction, conquer a strip of land, set up two fronts and expand. This also results in the game being painfully short, while there can be 20-some factions at the beginning (only 9 playable), in 5 years there will be half that and in another 5 years half that again. So in less than 10 years the game will be down to 4 or 5 factions. Which is a shame because the second half of the game is definitely the best, the units get more varied and the battles get bigger but there is less to enjoy. So what should you make of Shogun? Well since I have taken the entire 5000 world limit to rate it you can place it higher on your list of games to play, even though it's annoying at times it can also be very fun and I caught glimpses of better previous games at times. This is perhaps the game's greatest flaw, it will always be compared to excellent previous titles, but it's still a Total War game and if you get into it you will easily get 50 hours of game play.

This is a game that fits into a very thin niche in the strategy games' market, and as such it either works well for you or it doesn't. What it does it does very well and what it doesn't do...well it just doesn't do it for some people. If you are a huge strategy game fan (especially of other Paradox titles) or a real history buff then you will probably enjoy this game, but if you're more of a Call of Duty fan and looking to get into a different genre while you wait for the next shooter then this game is definitely not for you. The tutorial is rather boring and all text with no hands on experimentation and this leads to a lot of frustration and searching on the forums. I think the devs wanted you to experiment in-game and play with your own style and in this forces you to do so as a lot of the game is learn as you go, but the first few hours can be very frustrating. The interface is very disheartening even for a seasoned strategy player but it soon becomes your best friend and the more information the better. Diplomacy is definitely this game's strong point over competing RTS games, indeed if you wanted you could play the entire game without going to war and still accomplish many of your nations objectives. That's not to say warfare isn't an integral part of the game, but you are presented with many options for working around a rival nation, the Prussian/Austrian Campaign is especially enjoyable in this regard. Warfare is fairly well done, however you take no part in the battle and the strategy is in getting all the right technology, luring an enemy army into unfavourable conditions, maintaining supply lines, and trying to keep your economy running enough to keep your armies moving. It is really focused on the grand strategy where winning a battle takes a back seat to winning the war. The economy is also very well done and it's management is absolutely critical to your success or failure. All in all I enjoyed Victoria 2 and if you have a lot of time and patience on your hands then you probably will too, but know that you get what you put into this game and if you put in little you will get little in return.

When Mass Effect and The Witcher were in planning they must have shared cheat-sheets because the central formula and release date for both games are startlingly similar. Gritty, kick-ass main character: Check. Huge, engrossing plot with plenty of opportunities for role-playing: Check. A half decent combat system and a sub-par magical system: Check. Oh yeah, and **** **** **** and more **** CHECK! Bioware, however made the successful marketing strategy of advertising its alien **** while the Witcher was more subtle about it in the promos but when the time came it went all out. This is probably why Mass Effect got better ratings in my opinion because the two are almost equal in every area. But enough about the sex, it doesn't really play that big a part in either game, I just wouldn't give The Witcher to my kids. While Mass Effect is about a 'space marine' trying to save the galaxy, The Witcher is about a guy who no-one likes trying to save/destroy a town that no-one likes and save/kill all the humans/elves or dwarves. As you can see its very non-linear and with quite a lot of options that effect the game, so much so that if you kill someone at the beginning of the game you will feel the effects of it at the end and at several places in-between. I mentioned that the combat was mediocre, however two points really make up for it. One: an excellent potions system which allows you to gain huge advantages based on which enemies you are fighting. And two: it forces you to change your tactics based on the tactics of your enemy. These two factors really make up for the lack of a decent fighting system and keep the combat interesting. The story does take a long time to get moving, and you will spend the first half of the game not really knowing what is going on (and you don't even find out whom the main antagonist is until the very moment you go to fight him) but if you keep at it you will be rewarded. There is really a bit of everything, from the classic hero type questing, to a mystery plot in which you become a detective, to conducting/preventing a bank robbery. If you can get past the initial tedium, you will be rewarded as it has one of the best endings. In conclusion, if you are the kind of person who liked the shooting part of Mass Effect, you probably won't like this game, but if you liked the story aspect you probably will.

This is one of those games in which you are either going to love it or you're going to hate it. Before buying this game you need to ask yourself: Do I sometimes have fantasies about being a olde timey blacksmith? Or do I sometimes wish I cold run my local pub back when Charles still had his head attached? Or do you wonder that you could have been a pompous textile baron in a past life? If you have ever asked these questions then you are probably going to like this game and should waste no more time not having it in your life. That said, it is not without its problems, the gameplay is repetitive, the competitive AI is rather dull at times, and once you have made it there is really nothing else to do. However there is really no other game which falls into the genre of medieval life simulator with an economic focus that is this well done. In short, don't expect a life-changing experience but do expect to have a pleasant weekend followed by extensive research into pre-industrial economies.

Okay, if you are a fan of Magic: The Gathering card game but all your friends have moved away or refuse to leave their houses then this is a good game. It takes everything from the card version and packs it into an easy to understand interface and the online version it lets you play against a huge pool of good players from all over the world that you wont find hanging around your local Games Workshop. It is true to the card version in terms of rules and also has some pretty decent graphics which makes it seem almost real. However, the card version is all about people who don't have the best social skills getting together with other people who have never had a girl-friend and finding the human race isn't all that mysterious. And all the while enjoying some good old-fashioned fantasy game time that doesn't involve the arguing over the rules and the expense that you have with D&D or Warhammer 40k. Its about making friends and having a good time. You lose all of that with the video game and while the gameplay is there it just feels hollow. I suppose if you want to win the MTG World Cup and you need to practice with someone other than your friends then this game is for you but if you want a fantasy experience that doesn't involve socializing I would look elsewhere...

This Cossacks 2 has a good concept. Real-time strategy, unit based warfare like Empire Total War with real-time economic elements like AOE 3. Two really good gameplay elements melded into one and it is really a shame that poor polish ultimately made this game unplayable. There is huge degree of micro-management, with workers, units, and buildings all needing a great deal of care and attention, and that attention soon gets spread very thinly. That said, I am not against micro-management, quite the opposite, but the way it is presented in this game make it feel like needless busy-work. The economic management is basically nil, so you can run out of a resource in the midst of a huge battle and have almost no way to make up the difference. The interface is very clunky, especially in the heat of battle when you simply don't have time to second glance your commands. Your unit AI is very simple and pathfinding and auto-targeting are broken. For instance you cannot set non-artillery units to auto-fire, which means you must constantly be clicking back and forth up and down your lines to make sure that your unit is not getting shot to pieces without so much as returning fire. And since reload times are based on individual units and not squads, it is difficult to judge when the squad will be ready to fire, since you cannot order individual units to fire independently. And the morale system is very wonky as well, with the designated morale meter not being a very good indicator of your unit's overall morale. Half of a unit could break and flee and the meter would still read 100% for the other half and at other times it is close to zero and your brave soldiers will still be fighting on. In all if you can keep your army small it would not be very difficult to manage everything but the AI has a habit of trying to wear your done with attrition, sending wave after wave of cannon fodder until you either run out of ammunition or are overwhelmed. That said the AI is not overly complex and while it will attempt maneuvers or capturing strategic positions this is just an afterthought for its main strategy. And since they AI receives resource cheats its impossible to beat them through claiming strategic locations. There is also a campaign, which is slightly better than the random maps via scripts, it is rather unimpressive and boring. One example is half the officers in the Royal Army have Californian accents. All that said, I did not give the game a terrible score and this is why: The concept is truly unique and there is a huge amount of potential. If GSC can iron out all the rough edges there is strategy game of the year in Cossacks 3. Improve the AI, improve the interface, and there is a really great game to be had. I really hope the developers stick with this concept.

This is a game made by RPG fans for RPG fans. Unfortunately for the PC gaming layman or those coming from other genres this game will seen complex, slow, and unbalanced. But for those few with RPG game logic, patience, and willpower, that have been gained through years of BG2, Diablo, or NWN (one of course, possibly 2) this game will be a welcome breathe of fresh air that has been absent from the mainstream gaming for the past couple of years. Those things which non-RPG fans will find so frustrating about this game are exactly what RPG fans have been missing from titles like Oblivion or Dragon Age.

The Age of Empires series has been on a slope which peaked with the release of Age of Mythology. The Titans, Age of Empires 3 + Expansions have all been falling down that slippery slope. Unfortunately, the valley is nowhere in sight with Age of Empires online and the true fans of the game will find that this slope also comes with many toll stops. The game does present some new and enjoyable features, like a campaign with many missions, customizable units, well-balanced game-play and the online feature is also well instigated. However, even though the free version is free, you get a small amount of material (less than 5 hours of game-play). You are also blocked from many technologies, units, buildings, and civilizations. It would be more accurately defined as a generous demo than a game. The main flaw of this game is the huge price tag for the entire content, $100 for all the civs. There has been a recent trend of many games studios to release DLCs instead of an expansion or new game, the reason being that fans will pay $10 for a glittery new feature but will only pay $20 for an entire expansion. The cost of the entire version of AOE Online can reach $100 but even with all the premium content you are still looking at a game which feels incomplete. Then the realization appears that a huge amount of content has been withheld for the DLC goldmine. This is where the evil Microsoft monster rears its ugly head, squeezing every nickle and dime out **** that who best be described as "family friendly". Thats right, all of the fans out there who have enjoyed the game since its humble beginnings do not even have a challenge worthy of their time, but at least there kids will be occupied with 10 hours of content at $10/hour. My prediction right now is that by the end of the year enough DLCs will be released to increase the full content price by 50%. My advice, go with Starcraft 2, even though Blizzard is raking in as much money as god with WoW they still had enough respect for their fans to release a complete game, and at half the cost of AOE Online.

This expansion definitely adds a lot of new and enjoyable content to the series and if you happened to enjoy any of the other EU games you will enjoy this. That said EU fits into a very fine niche of history enthusiasts. If you do not enjoy reading history books then you will find this game lacking but if your the kind of person who reads Gibbon from cover to cover then you will find this game scratches an itch that very few other games scratch. Mechanically it is not very impressive, you build your buildings, move your armies, and watch them fight with other armies. The real joy is in creating a realm of historical fiction, or, more difficult, re-create history. What would have happened if the French conquered Lombardy? Where would history be if the Bohemians dominated the Holy Roman Empire? What if Russia had expanded West instead of East? If you are the kind of person who has asked these questions then you are the kind of person who will enjoy EU Divine Wind regardless of its many mechanical nuances.

This is an excellent strategy game. The units are varied and fairly well balanced between factions, the maps are enjoyable and action packed, and the campaign is deep and fulfilling (aside from the cliffhanger). All units are customizable which adds a huge level of depth and strategic planning and the placement of strategic points prevents the game from being a defensive stand-off. The AI is challenging and the multiplayer is still active after 7 years which guarantees playability once you have mastered the AI. This is a must play both for strategy fans and table-top Warhammer enthusiasts.

I rated the original Dawn of War at 9 so I am rating this one at 8. Everything from the Original is here and all the content is as enjoyable as ever but it doesn't add as much as I expected. The new faction does present new challenges and is very enjoyable to master but outside of the campaign the Imperial Guard is absolutely worthless. In multiplayer it is effective if picked against the Eldar but since no one plays the Eldar in multiplayer the IG's only purpose is as a plot device. All-in-all get the Complete Collection of the Dawn of War series and play through the Winter Assault campaign but don't bother getting it as a stand-alone expansion.

KOTOR 2 has the misfortune of being named after an outstanding game. If it was a completely different Star Wars game it probably would have a better place in my heart but because it failed to live up to the expectations of its predecessor it will forever be doomed to sub-par. But even disregarding those failed expectations the game is simply average. Combat The melee combat is automatic and aside from occasional force spells is not very engrossing. The force spells are interesting and Force Lightning is always a blast but the melee feels like it could be done without you. If you started fighting and went to make a cup of tea the game might automatically win the fight for you before the kettle dings. You are really only needed for the more difficult fights and to move your characters from one encounter to the next. The main satisfaction is derived from waving around lightsabers. Dialogue There is enough dialogue to fill a book the size of War and Peace or a washer manual but instead of a plethora of well defined characters like Tolsky's masterpiece you find yourself talking to a washer manual with as much character as the soapy water within it. In the beginning there is plenty of people to meet but eventually you can predict what a characters next plot point will be 10 hours before it happens. I called the antagonist from the moment I met them and it was just a matter of time before my predictions were confirmed by their betrayal. Story In KOTOR you are a Sith Lord. In KOTOR 2 you are an old soldier. Why does the story need to exist? Who are you saving? What is your motivation? Why cant I just wave my lightsaber around for 20 hours? All these questions are unfortunately left unanswered and even unacknowledged. The plot is simply a device to move the character from one lightsaber battle to the next. I think the game wanted a character that anyone could relate to, a person with no outstanding qualities or past accomplishments that the player could then mold into an ultimate bad-ass. But there is no quest to save the galaxy or even defeat someone who is remotely capable of destroying a planet. You are simply a nobody who is trapped in the story of a nobody. In conclusion the only selling point of this game is the lightsabers. If you want to fantasize about yourself holding with a glowing hot stick then go for this game and skip all the dialogue and character interaction. But if you are looking for an engrossing and interactive game that will enhance your appreciation of the Star Wars universe then look elsewhere.