I'm surprised by the positive reviews of this game. I found it frustrating and hard work, from the get go. The lack of a comprehensive tutorial is the most glaring omission from this title. If ever a game needed one, its Chernobylite. Which brings me to the second key point of criticism. Its keyboard based controls. Its awkward, frustrating to use, ambiguous and feels like a God awful late 90's, early 2000's affair. With a less pedantic and more creatively user friendly approach focused on mouse based commands, this game would have been infinitely more playable. Lastly it tries to do far too much and end up being exhausting and confusing for the gamer. Build a base, manage food, grumpy co-workers , harvest resources with a janky hand based controller thats a pain in the ass to use. All the while the game demands you do things, "its way". There is no real freedom on offer here. You are shoe horned into taking a specific approach and doing what the game designers want. I wanted to like this game but I just don't. I'll wait eagerly for the new Stalker instead.
I played the remastered version of this game. Whilst the updated graphics are alright the overall gameplay is not. The story is a little bland, with a good degree of ethnicity based woke pandering and lots of dull, busy work missions , like find the mysterious woman....yawn. The single biggest flaw however is the combat interface which can only be described as janky. Combat sequences are unsatisfying and really comes down to clicking the mouse and hoping for a good outcome. A few weird bugs along the way do nothing to dispel the overall feeling of "meh". All in all, one of the least enjoyable and for my money, poorly designed games in the series.
There's no polishing this turd. The absolute WORST of the AC games. Incoherent controls, incessant, dreary, grindy, Pavlovian set pieces, you have to complete. The player is robbed of the opportunity to play the game freely and on their own terms. You could say this game plays you, not the other way around. To add to the misery are bugs, something I've rarely come across in this series . Its exacerbated further by poor streamlining/porting for the PC. Even on a decent rig, this thing can be laggy and stuttery, at times. I believe this monstrosity was rushed through the development cycle, in a matter of months. A shame, in a way, with more thought, development time, testing and a less controlling outlook, this could have worked, Suffice to say, not a patch on its contemporary, Unity, which I genuinely enjoyed.
Great idea, poor execution. I can't understand how the developers could take such a promising idea and create a game that's so, unplayable. The most obvious thing that's badly needed but missing, is a proper, in game tutorial. That's not the only issue, however. Mapping functions are weird and its difficult to separate out units based on function, such as soldier and worker. Add in a complex, confusing interface and this is a mess that more frustrating, than enjoyable. Die hard survivalist fan's might persist with this but I've got better things to do with my time.
In spite of amazing visuals, Atomic Heart left me cold. A Pavlovian approach to game play, combined with a lack of effective weapons, was simply frustrating and boring. Bioshock Infinite is still number one, in my book, for this kind of game. Shame the developers didn't take a closer look at how they did things. Suffice to say, wasted potential.
I played a lot of Might and Magic in my day, so I thought I'd give this a go. I'll be honest and say I this don't like this game. You are asked to do a variety of things, the relationship between which, is not well explained. It feels, to me, counter intuitive. I personally think this game would have been better had it tried to do less and tied ideas together. In summary, feels like a disjointed, complex mess, that could have accomplished more, had it taken the simple lesions from Might and Magic and built upon them.
A shooting game, which is what High On Life is, should be fast and vibrant with a growing sense of urgency and pace. Titles like COD get this but for some reason, HOL doesn't? I came to this game hoping for a fast paced, off beat, shooter and initially it seemed to be heading down that track and then everything "slowed down". Cluttered with at times annoying, "busy work" quests, funny ha ha sequences you have no choice but to watch and oddly overdone, pedantic tutorials, you wished would just get out of the way. In summary, I have not warmed to High On Life. Its fussiness and clutter, get in the way of what should be a no holds barred, zany shooter.
Yet another poorly optimized game. Crashed on start up. Got a refund. Really in my view dev's need to do a lot better than this. Its a growing trend and it not acceptable. Got this one refunded.
Shoddy optimisation. So bad, in fact, I couldn't get past the start screen. Seems to be the norm these days but given whats being charged, really unacceptable. Anyone ever heard of beta testing?
If you can put aside the dump trucks worth of woke propaganda, the latest Far Cry game is little more than a re-hash of its predecessor. Weapons physics are mostly decent, creative array of weapons to enjoy and upgrades we saw in the last game. Enemies are just as predictable and moronic, although it does seem they are more aggressive and better armed. Helicopters are as much fun as ever but vehicle handling is mediocre and as per the last game plane handling is shockingly bad. Why couldn't these problems have been addressed? Story line is garbage, even bringing on board quality actors can't overcome the over cooked characterisations and hammy woke nonsense, people are royally sick and tired of. In summary, feels a lot like five in most respects but is seriously undermined by woke lecturing no one asked for and mostly shoddy vehicle physics.
For me, the worst of the Assassins Creed games, I have played. Poorly optimised, buggy, to an extent that I found it largely unplayable. The complete opposite of Unity which which I found mostly well optimised and reasonably playable. Can't believe they came out in the same year!
I'm amazed at the positive reviews. Ridden with "busy work" missions, poorly executed parkour and clumsy weapons, plus an awkward interface and linear skill tree, I managed about 30 minutes of increasingly irritating, unsatisfying game play before I had, had enough and uninstalled this one. Only upside is reasonable graphics but that's hardly a point of difference, these days.
On the upside, beautiful environments that capture the era of French revolution, populated with life and historical characters. Reasonable if not exceptional combat, with a decent if limited upgrade path on gear and weapons. The skill tree is a little more comprehensive and offers some interesting choices, depending on how you approach the game. Do you focus on stealth or are you combat orientated? Now the downside. Janky controls are the titles biggest limiting factor. Parkour, which is a big aspect of this game are clumsy and at times, downright frustrating due to poor controls and poor execution in game design. Simple thing like climbing in windows, can be an exercise in frustration. As are running/pursuit sequences where the character gets "stuck" on objects in his path. In short, immersive, promising but ultimately, feels unfinished and lacking in polish.
Does anyone bother to test modern games before realising them? Probably a rhetorical question. Black Flag like many others suffers from a range of game play stifling bugs. The worst what I called the "wall fly". Incessantly getting stuck to walls with a view to climbing and then being unable to climb down. Controls for combat are far from sterling too. Fighting in hand to hand is especially irritating, with sluggish responses from key combo's the rule, rather than the exception. Really game developers need to do a lot better than this giving the $$ they charge for these titles, often years after release.
Buggy from the get go. Had a graphics card that met the required specs but the software had trouble recognising it and the game crashed on start up. To my mind not a good look.
Decent graphics and an interesting idea but really these days that's not saying a lot. Bright Memory is let down by stilted game play, an excessively complex system of keyboard combat combinations, only a concert pianist would appreciate and an overly linear "push button" approach that robs the player of the ability to play game "their way". All of this is made worse by poorly balanced game play, with extremely difficult bosses and under powered weapons and defensive moves. For me, the result is a game that's far more frustrating than it could ever be said to be enjoyable. 3/10 mostly for the solid core idea and quality graphics.
I'll start by saying I love Civilisation so I might be a little biased. That said, I ask myself why I like Civilisation and it becomes easier for me to say why I don't like Humankind. Civilisation puts you in control from the get go and compels you to make pressured decisions that are meaningful. There's modesty of choice which in turn creates a certain efficiency, that has a real impact on the direction your civilisation goes in and lets you stay in control. Humankind to me has a broader ambition that does not play out well in practice. It offers a more diverse range of choices but in doing so waters down any sense that you have control over the experience or the outcomes. There's simply too much going on and as a result choices seem to matter less and create the sensation that you are a viewer rather than participant in the society you are vested with creating. This is not helped at all by the lack of an interactive tutorial which has instead been replaced by a list of video's I doubt anyone will want to watch. People want to get their boots wet and dive in, Humankind for some reason doesn't appear to appreciate this. All in all not one I'll be playing nor can recommend which is a shame as we need more civilisation building games.
Dreadful. Confusing game design, bloated tedious story lines, interspersed by excessive cut scenes that made me feel like the game was playing me not the other way around. Only upside was the eye candy but on its own that's nowhere near enough.
Buggy, that's my experience. So bad in my case it was unplayable and was returned. Do these software companies undertake beta testing before releasing these titles into the wild? I have to wonder.
I'm amazed at the positive reviews. Poor key bindings, a confusing interface (how for example do you actually select grenades and throw them?), messy sandbox missions that feel aimless (no pun intended), stupid enemies, too may long shot missions and annoyingly drawn out save cycles. Topped off by more than a few bugs. Eye candy wise it has a lot to offer but then so do a lot of other poor games. I played for a couple of hours and quickly became bored and irritated, in equal measure. Last time I'll have anything to do with this franchise.
A decent concept hamstrung by poor game design that robs the user of control over the character and makes combat much harder than it needs to be. A situation made worse by cut scene overload and shoddy optimisation. The result is a irritating, frustrating experience, that feels linear in the worst way possible.
Not sure i get all the gushy reviews of this one. Days Gone comes across as a decidedly second rate Far Cry knock off with Walking Dead overtones. It has lots of eye candy and plentiful cut scenes, plus there's a skill tree and weapons upgrades too. Oh and it has an actual, admittedly capable, actor I remember from US version of Being Human cast as lead character, Deacon St John. That said, the negatives heavily outweigh the positive. This includes in game bugs that can be downright infuriating, unfair save game cycles you have very little control over, basic weapons and vehicle mechanics that often feel awkward. There's a real lack of balance game and cohesion in the story. Points are gained by building trust but its uneven between camps you visit which creates some real issues when it comes to things like fuelling up, re-arming and buying weapons and other provisions. Many of the missions add little to the disjointed plot and sub plot ridden story too and end up feeling like busy work. Its not helped either by limited diversity in environments and somewhat repetitive enemies. All in all, this one bored me after 3-4 hours of game play and I can not recommend it at its current purchase price.
Could have been good but like so so many city builders its strategic shortcomings really hinder game play. Perhaps the biggest general criticism is weird resource management and trade policies that confound efforts to extend trade when finite extract-able resources start to run out. On the subject of which who would set up a colony on a planet with so few extract able resources to start with? The results irritating game play that literally stops you from going any further unless you follow its linear, inflexible strategy parameters. For me the older Civ games and Kingdoms and Castles really are the best of the bunch. 4/10.
Engagingly atmospheric Mafia oozes 20's charm but eye candy does not make up for some conspicuous shortcomings. Game physics are a real headache. Movement, weapons handling and vehicles are clumsy and awkward. Regrettably, this is also one of those horribly linear games that makes you do things in a sequence. For example, kill all enemies before you can open a door to rescue a fellow mobster.. Its a shame I can't rate this title highly but at the end of the day game play is everything and this one, for me, is lacking in that respect. 4/10.
Feels like a game designed for ten year old's. Disney style vibe, uninspiring hero's, a shallow interface that's a hot mess, horrible smudgy cartoon graphics, insultingly juvenile tasks like creating a "shelter for your pet". Why not include a timer while you are at it that reminds us when we need to do our homework or take a nap? Just bad in every sense I can think of. I'll stick to the first two games and pretend this never happened.
For me the biggest shortcoming in this game is its awkward, counter intuitive controls. I don't understand too why the opening campaigns are focused on foot soldiers? It really **** the excitement out of the game. A nice idea but controls and pacing quickly ruined it for me. In my opinion this should really have been held back until more time was spent on ironing out these issues and taking additional feedback from BETA game players.
Game play is poorly balanced leaving you with segments you complete based mostly on dumb luck, rather than skilled game play. They simply load in too many adversaries, whilst offering up stingy health and ammo. I can imagine this would be a problem for people with mid to low end gaming rigs. Its very very demanding graphically. If you want fun, frustration free, Serious Sam, I recommend the first two classic games. The graphics might not be as good but the game play is, in my opinion, much more enjoyable.
Unlike other turn based games like XCom, for example, there is no graduated difficulty, with the game being, I feel, unreasonably difficult from the get go. The result is either you will persist or become frustrated, as I did and walk away. I don't mind a challenge but i do expect to be given at least a little time to get comfortable before the game becomes tougher. All in all I think this was a poor decision by the designers which will see this game appeal to die hard turn based fans only.
I was at uni when the original Doom games came out. This is quite frankly nothing like them. It vaguely apes the look and feel of the original but in terms of game play its got it all wrong. The original games were, for starters, not this hard. The game physics were generally better and there was always tons of health lying around if you took a pounding. They were fast run and gun shooters whereas this thing is has more in common with the new Doom (which I detest). It slows down the momentum of the original by making it too hard and inserting aggravating Super Mario Brothers style jump sequences. Weapons handling is loose and aiming is horrible. Everything requires distance when the original game was up close and personal. Newcomers may be fooled but vets like myself know better. Played for a short time and walked away. Thankfully it was not too expensive. My advice try a port of the original and see if you don't agree.
Seems almost everything these days has been whacked with the woke stick. Guess I should not be surprised that games are getting a "make over" too. This is diversity loving, inclusive huggie XCom where people have made peace with the mean old aliens and now have coffee and do lunch with them. Its all sooo nice the world has turned pink and a nice lady called "mother" runs the show. If that sounds horrible to you, you are not alone. What I liked about XCom was its cold edge, the sense that this was as much as horror as a sci fi game where you faced off against a menacing unrelenting other. This for me is like taking the creature from Aliens and dressing it in a pink floppy hat whilst sharing a margarita with it. Yuck. 3/10.
This has the makings **** game but its odd ball attitude to developing land with restrictions like 3/3 buildings in a large area of land where more buildings could be constructed makes it unreasonably and illogically hard to develop your settlement. I'm really at a loss to understand why game developers these days don't use common sense and apply the keep it simple rule. Being too clever can mean making a game un-enjoyable and frustrating. Such is the case here.
Wolcen Lords of Mayhem is cast in a similar vein to Diablo. On the plus side its game play is enjoyable, its interface sensible and mostly easy to use. The environments are varied, colourful and well rendered and the enemies including boss creatures, creative and interesting. Cut scenes are well done too and generously sprinkled through the game. On the downside, there are LOTS of bugs in this game. Enemy targeting is at times "off". The character literally gets stuck on points in a map forcing you to repeat an area. The game took me back to the first episode even though I'd reached the second. Thankfully there was a fix of sorts which required editing a game file. It worked but still who expects that. Lastly the game crashed more than a few times on shut down and locked up so far once during game play. I found using potions, such as health and magic, a real issue. Either there's yet another bug or some really impractical decisions have been made. Potions even when equipped often take time to show up in the interface and you simply can't use them in the interim. When you do they often fail to offer a significant effect or sometimes just don't work until you mash the Q or W keys several times. This is a substantial shortcoming that badly undermines game play when you are facing off against hordes of creatures or bosses. The result is a frustrating grind where you repeat some sequences over and over and luck sees you through. I can see why people have not rated this game, game play is poorly balanced, in part because of this. I really feel this game URGENTLY needs patching and perhaps it was released prematurely? Wolcen has so much promise, if the list of bugs were fixed I'd be unreserved in my praise. As it stands 4/10.
I was young when the original Id game Doom came out . It worked because it was quickfire addictive with lots of ammo, bad-ass weapons and nimble. This thing is about as nimble as a pregnant elephant, there is hardly any ammo and it weapons feel weak and under powered. In short its crap that only has bears the same name as the original game whilst having little or nothing in common with it. How on earth they managed to ruin what is a simple formula is hard to understand but then look what they did to Wolfenstein. No doubt the MSM morons will praise it to the ceiling but then don't they always.
Could have been good but some really bad decisions around the game interface and game play itself makes this game ultimately more frustrating than enjoyable. 2/10.
After a year of really awful games it nice to see something simple but playable. That's what you get with Terminator Resistance. Nothing big budget just a relatively straightforward if at times difficult game. This is not your classic run and gun. There is a need to employ strategy and evasion. The latter I'm not so good at, so I did have to repeat some sections a few times. On the downside the graphics are a bit too dark and muddy at times and the stingy approach to ammo allocation could have been eased off somewhat. I'm also not convinced employing lock picking really adds much to this game either as it tends to slow things down. That said this is still one of the better titles in a year of pretty crummy games. 7/10.
I found the last game infinitely more playable and enjoyable. This ones fiddly interface with a weird weapons HUD, horrible weapons handling, more key combinations than your average piano and an odd ball ranged aiming system, that was hard to grasp, simply fell flat. Its also loaded down by in game bugs, some of which are a real nightmare and a dim witted AI. The checkpoint based save system is just as horrible in a game with this degree of problems not to mention difficulty. Didn't like the anti Russian vibe either which was reminiscent of the tedious nonsense spouted by the US's generally moronic dishonest MSM and elements of its political establishment. On the upside this game is pretty enough but as we know good looks will only take you so far. For me a disappointment on many fronts, which is a shame, as I do like the Sniper franchise. My advice try the older games in this franchise they are simply better, more accessibible and less frustrating.
Mediocre Diablo knock off. That was my first thought having played 30 minutes of this game. There's a lack of polish. You seem unable to manually adjust the camera angles which annoyingly auto adjusts in a way that often makes things harder not easier. Its not a small shortcoming when you are asked to climb walls, jump and pull levers, fly and more. Which is my second area of criticism. These game components are handled badly, its hard to do what should be straight forward tasks. Often you feel like this game is a keyboard and mouse killer as you have to mash and pound keys to get things done. Its imprecise and luck plays a big part. Additionally why is it when your character is obscured you get a blue outline but not one of the characters he's fighting? Its these shortcomings that rob this game of appeal and slow its pace, which is a real failing in what should be a fast paced scrolling D&D style game. On the upside the action is reasonable. Its has the right feel and the sets are nice. The banter between the two characters is good, as is the general story. Sound track is decent too. That said this one feels lackluster and I'm having a hard time getting into it. I guess I'm simply used to better. In short OK but not great. My advice as they tell you when the game starts get a game pad to plug into your PC or laptop. I think this would improve game play and will save your keyboard and mouse.
This was once a decent franchise but like so many others its fallen by the wayside. My key criticism of this game is it in a sense "plays itself". Your choices are to a good degree made for you from the get go and worse still, its skill tree, is an overly complex mess I simply found confusing. Add to that an inability to save as you wish and this one really left me cold. Combat was bad too with opponents who all seemed to be expert shots inflicting massive damage and horrible weapons that seemed to take forever to reload. On the upside its pretty but its play ability is very very limited. My advice take a look at "The Outer Worlds" instead. 2/10.
Bad heaped on worse. Once I finally managed to overcome this things endless bugs its game play was truly, truly AWFUL. I have been playing games since Space Invaders, I'm a gaming veteran and I can say honestly this is one of the WORST games I've ever encountered. Its dismal on line focus is only matched by choppy idiotic game play that feels frenetic in a bad way. Its throw everything into a bloody blender and hope for the best. There's no strategy just appallingly crude run and gun. Just to make this mess extra extra awful you have parkour style segments that are just horrible. Some genius had the inspired idea of making some of it in the dark with you using a flashlight!!!! Sorry but F**K ME! To add to your misery the thing wont let you decide when to save and if you leave in frustration like I did before completing a level you have to START AGAIN!!! I seriously don't think I'll ever go near this franchise or Bethesda ever again. 0/10.
There are a lot of familiar tropes to be found in The Outer Worlds. The most obvious point of comparison is the Fallout franchise. Certainly the cyberpunk space mash up with 50's styled nostalgia does speak to this game. But its not Fallout. There are other things on offer here that set it apart. Space adventure with an anti corporate message reminiscent of the wonderful TV series Firefly. There's also a dash of Bioshock Infinite thrown in, to boot. Some have called this game average. I think that's because so much that's similar has gone before. I prefer to call it "polished". Its a beautiful game with an immersive open world. If you like linearity this might annoy you somewhat. I would say some of the wandering around can get tiresome. That said, there's goodies to pick up, fully fledged and well thought out RPG style character building system including weapons, armor and skills. You can pass some of these benefits on to companion characters too. I'll add unlike some titles this one is in my experience bug free. It loads and plays seamlessly. When you consider the amount of poorly tested crap that comes out of some major studios, this is a great effort from this games developers. They obviously care about more than the players money. I really really like this game. Sure it does what other's have done but it does it better, with more skill and flair. 8/10 from me.
The obvious comparison for a game like this one is UFO: Enemy Unknown. Regrettably this title is a mediocre facsimile of a much better classic game. Key shortcomings lie in the game physics. Even experienced troops make incessant rookie mistakes, shooting other soldiers, aiming with an inexplicable lack of accuracy at close range and being unable to fire over basic obstacles like cars that are not even obstructing them. Grenade handling is not a lot better. The other problem is the balancing system which makes is heavily levelled against you. Too heavily in my opinion. I completed this game but I found it more frustrating and irritating than I could have said it was enjoyable.
I have spent many years playing Civilization and this looked similar so I thought I'd take a look. Suffice to say this is nothing like Civilization. I could not figure out what I was supposed to do and even when I could it was not clear why I was doing it. The interface was far too busy with too much going on. I definite sense of sensory overload and worse still no real tutorial just a talking head spouting far too much information to actually be meaningful. I also got the sense that you had little control over how decisions are made and a lot of it is controlled by the AI. I'll persist a little longer but so far not very satisfying. Indeed quite frustrating. I suspect this may be refund territory.
This is one of those little gems you come across once in a while that the so called critics are luke warm about but its actually far better than they suggest. Redeemer is a violent little top down beat em up shoot em up game that's fun but also surprisingly difficult at times too. Its addictive wading your way through enemies and level design is creative and varied. On the downside I felt the controls could have been better. I can see why they opted for left shift to choose assault rifles and other weapons of that kind but its still awkward. The lack of maneuverability of your character is also a hassle when it comes to boss fights too. Its really becomes a reload and hope for the best slug fest. Still a lot to like here and not a lot of demand on even an average system. A thumbs up from me.
Seriously flawed. That's my impression of They Are Billions. This is essentially a strategic city building game that looks good but for all that eye candy your ability to build defenses is seriously limited. This makes the game impossibly hard from the very first level. I was so unimpressed I walked away and wont be back. Suffice to say in my view this one needs a patch released urgently. I'm amazed it was released in this state.
Yet another mediocre game dragging down the once excellent Hitman franchise. This is another one of those games that play's itself to a good degree. You have few choices and they are shoe horned into mini missions where you follow a paint by the numbers process to an inevitable conclusion. This mentality is reflected in a lack of choice in the planning stage where you have few options from a stripped down menu. It makes the whole game feel bland and brainless. If you like a strategy for simpletons approach this may appeal. I suspect die hard fans who enjoyed the flexibility and innovation of the original games will once again be disappointed. Cut scenes are crap too.
Mediocre at best boring at worst. That pretty much sums up my feeling about Rage 2. It has many shortcomings, the biggest of which for me is a vast sandbox that feels mostly empty. They would have been better served making the world smaller and more richly populated like Borderlands. The second key flaw for a game that claims to be wall to wall action is incessant Stalker and Metro style shortages of ammo. This quickly grows tiresome and robs the game of pace and enjoyment. Lastly the feel of this game is not helped by rather bland graphics. Everything is washed out with ugly colour palettes and uninteresting environments. Indeed graphically this game feels backwards, like something you would have expected back in the early 2000's. All in all a really bland affair that I'd lost interest in after 40 minutes or so of play.
If the last two to three years can be remembered for anything its "unmemorable" games. The baton in the race to the bottom has been picked up by COD WWII. This is really a banal remix of any combination of previous WWII games you care to mention with big budget cinematic's and prettier graphics. Like so many other titles I rather get the feeling this in itself is enough to make a game sell. Maybe, maybe not. What does help is creative varied game play and an acknowledgement that the USA was not the only country to fight the Axis. This gets a quick mention at the start in truth but then its USA all the way. No option whatsoever to play another allied or axis nation which would have made the game a lot more diverse and interesting. Whats also flawed in this game is like so many others its reliance on "push button" cut scenes where you try to destroy your keyboard attempting to do something pointless like a early on and quite frankly God awful tussle with a German soldier armed with a bayonet. This could and in my opinion should have been left out. It added nothing and the clumsy approach taken to key/mouse combinations was a usability nightmare. In short, in my opinion, this is mediocre fare that's repetitive and feels awkward due to the weird mouse key combo's used in the annoying, on best left in the recycle bin ", interactive" cut scenes. 2/10 from me.
It seems every generation Far Cry games grow more and more uninspiring. Game play in New Dawn often felt heavy and clumsy. Sequences involving unarmed combat or clubs or bars, etc were especially plodding, as were some of the clunky confrontations with villains at the end of the game. In game play was mostly alright but repetitive and added nothing that had not been done in Far Cry 5. Indeed in a sense this game feels like a DLC and not a new addition to the series. It would have been nice to see some new opponents with unique skills and abilities and a wider range of adversaries, rather than the mostly generic, Highwaymen. Another bland addition to the Far Cry franchise unless you really really like pink, that is. 2/10 from me.
Simply crashed after the intro. No idea how to fix it initially. Trial and error showed me it did not like my high end NVIDIA card and I had to switch to my laptops integrated graphics card. The result was playing the game on settings I have not used for years. The whole wretched experience was made worse by the exaggerated motion blur you simply can't turn off. I actually started feeling nauseous after trying to play for a short time. In the end reached the conclusion did not get what I asked for and have since sought a refund. In my view a game that needed much more testing including end players. 0/10 from me. 0/10.
This game feels cumbersome and heavy even on a decent middle of the road gaming laptop. All games perform well but not this one. I attribute this to the top heavy interface loaded down with marketing hype and cheesy over the top cinematic's that could and probably should have been left out. Single player missions feel like gaming "sushi" and not in a good way. Missions don't build on each other and the result is a game that feels like a multiplayer game with an incomplete single player as an afterthought. Game itself play is alright but quickly becomes repetitive and linear with boxed in objectives that feel forced and unrealistic. As do some of the characters who are historically inaccurate and feel out of place in a WWII context. In short a graphically pretty lemon I uninstalled and decided not to play as it felt like a waste of my time. Just as well I got it cheap. 2/10 from me.
