The last few games you beat and rate them III

Status
Not open for further replies.

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,224
9,617
Everything in the game works great, you have infinite time to decide your turn to figure out how to be as efficient as possible to defend your objectives and kill as many enemies as possible. My main problem is the final mission. There are two stages to the final stage. The first is simply to survive for 4 or 5 turns. It's obviously difficult, being the final mission, but I didn't have much issue with that. The second part of the stage is where my issue lies. You have to defend a bomb for 4 turns until it explodes to exterminate the alien insect invasion. The problem is that you enter a new map and don't get to pick where your mechs spawn. The insects all spawn and make their movements and I've gone into the final mission with a full power grid but got bad RNG for where my mechs spawn relative to the power cells and insects. The game itself is great but getting to that final mission and feeling like the game is determined before you even get control is incredibly frustrating. I still think it's a solid game for the price but that made me go from "this game is a must have, game of the year canditate" to "this game is great but the end game is incredibly frustrating."

I'd be lying if I said that I've never gotten frustrated and said "This isn't fair" or "This is a no-win situation!" to myself on that final stage, but what I love is that it challenges me to think twice as long about each move as I would on any other stage. I can't tell you how many times that I've felt that there was no way that I could possibly win and then, just moments later, pulled victory from the jaws of defeat. It's moments like those that make the game so rewarding and special.

Instead of getting frustrated, try embracing the challenge and keeping your mind open to different solutions. For example, though counter-intuitive, it might be your best or only option to let an alien almost destroy the bomb just so that you can protect more power cells. Also, it's possible to push the bomb onto another square, which is something that didn't occur to me to be possible until I'd beaten the stage many times already. I love that the challenge of the final stage, even if it can be unfair, requires me to think of solutions that I normally might not have.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,946
3,678
Vancouver, BC
Ultra Street Fighter IV - 2.5 (Good)
Beat it on the hardest difficulty, which was actually pretty underwhelming compared to the challenge of the older games. It's uglier and stiffer than SFV, but is a significantly more polished, tasteful, and mechanically sound game. Still pales in comparison to the best 2D ones, especially in terms of visuals, aesthetic, animation, music, character design, and style. The franchise has dropped in quality hard since 3rd Strike, IMO, but it's still consistently a more understated and less obnoxious take on fighting games than most of the annoying flashy ones, and the base mechanics of Street Fighter that all of these titles share is just a brilliant thing that I'll always be blown away by, personally.

Franchise rankings:
Super Street Fighter II Turbo - 5.0 (Masterpiece)
Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike - 4.5 (Brilliant)
Street Fighter Alpha 2 - 3.0 (Great)
Street Fighter Alpha 3 - 3.0 (Very Good)
Ultra Street Fighter IV - 2.5 (Good)
Street Fighter V: Arcade Edition - 2.0 (Positive)
Street Fighter I - 0.0 (Terrible)
 
Last edited:

Commander Clueless

Hiya, hiya. Pleased to meetcha.
Sep 10, 2008
15,286
2,992
The Messenger (PC) - 10/10

Loved every second (well, maybe except the parts where I sucked :laugh:) but a frankly hilarious and thoroughly enjoyable game, and the switching between 8 and 16 bit is really cool. Would have made my top 10 of 2018 easily if I played in in 2018, and wouldn't necessarily have won, but would have at least challenged Celeste for best indie game of the year. Brilliant game with incredible writing, easily worth the asking price (particularly if you got it from Twitch Prime like I did).

Also, the music is phenomenal. Still have the shop music and the Glacial Peak music stuck in my head.


EDIT: Screw it, I'm playing New Game +. I basically never do that after finishing a game, so I'm upping this to a 10/10.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Frankie Spankie

No Fun Shogun

34-38-61-10-13-15
May 1, 2011
56,314
13,153
Illinois
Zelda II (on the Switch)

Less frustrating that I remember. Granted, having the ability to essentially pause the game anywhere and come back to it then certainly helped.

7/10
 

Ceremony

blahem
Jun 8, 2012
113,232
15,474


Just Cause 3 (PS4, 2015)

Before deciding what I had to say about Just Cause 3 I went back and looked at my review of the previous game in this series. I found JC2 enjoyable in a methodical sort of way, working through the missions and other activities in a workmanlike but, mostly, fun rhythm.

What then to say of Just Cause 3, the first effort on an 8th generation console? Surely we can imagine Just Cause 2 with improved graphics, some tightening of the controls and being a completely fluid, effortless romp though a cohesive and detailed map which is sized appropriately for all the gameplay mechanics you can utilise to move around in and destroy it?

Well, you know the answer to that question, don't you.

JC3 is large. I checked to see how large it is in comparison to 2, and they're pretty comparable in size. Medici, the fictional Mediterranean locale where it's set, is comprised of three main areas. You start out with missions centred around two which are smaller and made up mostly of small islands. They're still large, and they can take time to move around, but for the most part they're quite nice looking and have stuff to do. These two areas are about a quarter of the land mass combined of the main island above them. Which is comprised of... mostly nothing.

I would put this meandering criticism further along in my review after the usual topics like story, gameplay, graphics, etc, but the sheer mass of the map – and the size is its defining characteristic – is so overwhelming it's impossible to really think about anything else. I certainly didn't. Only a few hours into the game getting around and doing things became a chore.

The story and the story missions are a waste of time. The dictator in charge of Medici is evil! Okay. He has access to huge piles of something called Bavarium, a mineral which can be weaponised and is putting him on a path to world domination or something. None of the story missions amount to anything more than going somewhere and killing things, usually with more restrictions than the open play you've been used to. For a game centred around freedom and destruction, it's jarring. There are times too when the story missions feel... I don't know how to even describe it. Poorly optimised? They can be quite overwhelming in terms of enemy counts and without even a clear objective (or maybe I tuned out while people were talking) you can struggle to survive, struggle to kill people, and not know why.

The bulk of the gameplay outside of the story is the same as JC2, going round liberating towns and military bases by destroying all the government-operated objects. If you've freed one town, you've freed them all. Same goes for the military bases although these were often more annoying, especially if you were trying to blast everything with a helicopter. Bases have multiple SAM sites which are all surprisingly efficient and effective. If I didn't know better I'd swear the game was trying to get you to play it a certain way.

Outside of liberating settlements are an assortment of challenges. Races, destruction frenzies and wingsuit gliding challenges are all here to annoy you as well. For nearly every challenge that needs a vehicle or weapon though you can either pick your own or grab something from near the starting point, so the only point of them is to be a normal settlement liberation against the clock. You can be glad of being able to default to the fastest car/boat/plane every time though, because the vehicle physics in this game is appalling. Imagine trying steer a shopping trolley as it goes down a hill. While carrying a phonebox with a shark in it. That's just the cars. Bikes are worse. Helicopters fly as if they're broken and are more predictable after they've been hit by some missiles.

You can avoid this, mostly, by getting around the map with Rico's grappling hook, parachute and wingsuit combination which lets him create his own momentum by reeling into something and firing up the parachute, which moves him forward. This is fine, like last time. Nothing else. The wingsuit has the distinct impression of being added to try and feel like something new, but it's annoying to control and only worth using if you want to get from somewhere high to somewhere low more quickly than with the parachute. Fortunately, the empty part of the map to the north which is filled with mountains gives you no reason to actually go there, so it doesn't come up that much.

Combat mechanics are mostly fine, although as I cleaned up the challenges and unlocked some upgrades I realised I hadn't used half of them. You can attach booster explosives to people which, when activated, fire them around like ragdolls for a few seconds before blowing up. You can also use the grappling hook to attach people to anything, and instantly reel them in. If you haven't played the game, imagine trying that with a twitchy control system while a dozen people are shooting at you. It's as impractical and tedious as it sounds. Even more unnecessary when you have a grenade launcher and a surprisingly effective LMG.

Now to the good part. The problems. Loading times that would have been embarrassing on the previous generation of consoles. These improved as I played for a bit longer, but there was still the odd freeze and the game flat-out bluescreened on me yesterday. Another time I was gently descending to land with my parachute. I was waiting to reel in when I got close enough to grapple to a cliff face, but the reticule didn't come up. I watched as Rico carried on through the side of the hill, clipping under the map and on to certain oblivion if I didn't stop him. Being relatively new to working my way through PS4 games I'm a bit more than underwhelmed if this is the sort of quality a 40GB game gets you. And since there's an ongoing score counter for 'Chaos' whenever you destroy enemy objects, you can be pottering about, minding your own business when you get a message saying you destroyed a jet or something. Awful.

If there's one thing that deserves a paragraph of its own though, it's the various user interfaces. There is no mini-map displayed when you're in-game. In a map which is several hundred square kilometres in size. Aside from the obvious sense of disorientation which results, the few attempts at compensating for it the game employs don't help. If you're in a car then a route will appear on the road, but given how difficult to control they are you'll probably miss several turns along the way. No mini-map also means you need to pause all the time to bring the map up and find story missions, settlements or collectibles, which gets really tedious and kills any sense of immersion that the game must surely have been going for.

The map itself isn't much better. There's no legend, so you can't know what a symbol on it means unless you hover over it. You also get every kind of waypoint on it at once with no way to filter them, so if you were looking for something in particular you're going to struggle to find it. Bonus points are on offer too for the colours used for the challenges. Got the best score on a challenge? It'll be blue. Not quite got there yet? We'll make it an extremely blue-y green colour. On the background which itself is varying shades of blue. I don't know how testing for games works but there are a lot of small aspects of JC3 which make me feel like nobody not involved in its creation played it before it went on sale. Surely these are glaring faults, easily solved?

I think I've covered everything. The game is focused on freedom – in your movement, your approach to what to do and how you go about it. Most of the controls are twitchy and better served with a carpet bombing, the map is unfit for purpose and it doesn't look particularly exceptional either. It's hard to say that a game I probably spent 50+ hours in was completely unforgettable, but that's really the impression I'm taking away. Like Just Cause 2, but slightly worse in most aspects. There's progress for you.
 

GlassesJacketShirt

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
11,439
4,199
Sherbrooke
RAGE (PC)

So I pushed through and finished the game, wasn't too long. The gunplay grew on me a bit, though the constant brushing off of headshots got old big time. Driving was a tad awkward, not terrible but mediocre. Story............anyway, this one's average at best.

5/10
 

Frankie Blueberries

Allergic to draft picks
Jan 27, 2016
9,159
10,635
RAGE (PC)

So I pushed through and finished the game, wasn't too long. The gunplay grew on me a bit, though the constant brushing off of headshots got old big time. Driving was a tad awkward, not terrible but mediocre. Story............anyway, this one's average at best.

5/10

The sequel looks surprisingly good. The 2018 E3 demonstration definitely surpassed my expectations.
 

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,224
9,617
The sequel looks surprisingly good. The 2018 E3 demonstration definitely surpassed my expectations.

The first game didn't know what it wanted to be. It tried to be part shooter, part open world RPG and part vehicle combat game. Throw in the assortment of mini games and it was like the developers just tried to cobble together all of the things that seemed popular in games in the late 2000s. I hope that the sequel has a better idea of what it wants to be. I think that it should take inspiration from the Borderlands games, since that's what the first game should've been more like, IMO.
 

Frankie Spankie

Registered User
Feb 22, 2009
12,362
396
Dorchester, MA
Devil May Cry HD Collection [7/10]

This is my first playthrough of any of the Devil May Cry series games except for DmC: Devil May Cry [2013]. As far as I know, Devil May Cry HD Collection is just remastered remakes of the original 3 Devil May Cry games. I wanted to play them all before Devil May Cry 5 comes out and decided to plow through them in the past month.

Devil May Cry 1 - 6.5/10

The original Devil May Cry is just a hack and slash where you fight demons. I'm going to start by outright saying the cameras suck. They're hard cameras in a corner of a room, similar to old school Resident Evil games, and can make movement feel really awkward, especially while platforming. It's rather short, I beat it in under 5 hours. The combat is pretty fun but nothing too crazy. There's no dodge button but jumping still gets the job done when timed correctly. It just doesn't make combat feel like it flows as well as a dodge button would. You can alternate between guns and swords to pull off some fun combos.

You'll find that there isn't much enemy variety and you end up fighting the same few bosses multiple times. The map design is really cool and definitely a shining part of the game. You're in a big castle that you'll have to revisit sections as you find new ways to unlock doors. It was really cool seeing how new rooms will open things up and how rooms sometimes change on you as you progress. Overall, it's pretty fun even by today's standards if you can get over the bad cameras. It's simple fun really, being able to beat the game in under 5 hours feels like a good length for a game with these shortcomings though.

Devil May Cry 2 - 2/10

I read some reviews beforehand about people saying to not waste your time on the game but I wanted to give it a shot. I should have listened to those reviews... You can pick between Dante and Lucia and when looking up the differences, people said Lucia's combat was a lot more fun and the game was shorter. I figured I would just play as Lucia to see the main story since the majority of the story appears to be the same. If this is what the "fun" part of the game is, I don't want to ever see what Dante plays like. The game is just so uninspired and feels so generic.

The charm of the level design in the original is completely gone with this one. The combat is incredibly bland and I found myself just spamming throwing daggers most of the time. Even the bosses are generally far away from you, requiring you to just spam ranged attacks. On the bright side, they do give you a dodge button! A very unresponsive dodge button, but you do get one... The platforming, wow, I don't know how you make platforming so bad. The platforming itself isn't particularly good but the camera angles are awful. The camera will actually often change angles mid jump, making you screw up even the simplest of jumps. I only got to mission 8 in about 1-2 hours (which is more than half way through the game) and I still called it early. Yeah, let's just pretend like this game never happened.

Devil May Cry 3 - 8/10

Devil May Cry 3 does a great job at fixing some of the issues with the previous titles. It brings back the charm from the original too. The story was a lot of fun to go through and there was some great humor and ridiculousness going through it, which I love in these style games. There are several different combat styles that you can switch between to your playstyle but I pretty much always stuck to trickster. They bring back the level design of the original Devil May Cry, which I loved when it came to making it feel like one big level with chapters rather than different levels.

The camera angles are still an issue but not nearly as bad as the original two. There were times where I'd get hit from a boss' charge attack because the boss was off camera and it was slow to react when I tried targeting the boss. Overall, even with the not-great camera work, the combat still feels the best from the original trilogy.

------

Overall, for the HD Collection, I'd say it's worth a buy. The original has charm to it, you may like it, you may not, but the third one was really good. Just pretend like the second one isn't there and enjoy some over the top demon killing action.
 

Frankie Spankie

Registered User
Feb 22, 2009
12,362
396
Dorchester, MA
Resident Evil 2 Remake - 7.5/10

I only briefly played the original RE2, I was too young and too scared to really keep going. Now is a different story. I played as Claire as I was recommended her story by a friend of mine that I played through his Steam account on. I might play the other stories if I can get a save file with everything unlocked just to power through them, I don't have any immediate plans to replay the other stories right now. The gameplay was really good, although I would have rather had it in first person after playing RE7, which I enjoyed quite a bit more. My main issues were pretty glaring IMO:
  • Zombies are WAY TOO spongey. It takes too much to down these things that you'll never be able to down most of them due to a lack of ammo.
  • Some animations felt clunky in regards to AI. I get that zombies were spongey, so I'd shoot them to make them stagger and run past. Sometimes though, they would break their stagger mid animation just to grab me and damage me. Even with a couple of the boss battles, I would be out outside of the physical animation area of an attack but would still take damage.
  • You realize that just running without slowing down is the best thing to do. It feels like a running simulator at times.
  • The health system seems like a complete crap shoot. Let's just say you get 3 HP instead of going from green > yellow > red > dead. Sometimes you would take 1 damage, sometimes you would take 2 damage, it felt like there wasn't any rhyme or reason to it. Furthermore, sometimes a zombie would grab you and it would force you to use an item on the zombie. You weren't allow to try to save that item and just heal up, no, you just flat out die if you don't use it. Health pick ups felt lacking through most of the game and I feel like it was directly tied into the fact that damage felt completely random.
  • Mr. X was not scary at all, he was just annoying. You just had to keep running and can hide in a save room until he leaves you alone. Since you could just run the same speed, all you had to do was not slow down. When I got out of the police station and he's following me, I had to wait for the zombies to clear the path to the fire escape. I had to literally just run in circles on the street until the zombies cleared the gate so Mr X couldn't catch up to me. I didn't feel like I was in danger, it was just another thing I was forced to do for no reason.
That being said, the level design is top notch and the exploration felt great. The story was fun to go through with some tense moments. I still enjoyed the game but don't think it's a master piece like a lot of people call it. I would honestly much rather have a version where zombies take less damage to kill and they scaled the ammo back so every shot was just as important.
 

JJ68

Registered User
Oct 5, 2017
1,313
1,105
I cant give anything a perfect score unless there is absolutely nothing that could be improved upon, so having said that...Red Dead Redemption gets a 9.5

Instant classic.
 

SniperHF

Rejecting Reports
Mar 9, 2007
42,747
21,524
Phoenix
Outcast: Second Contact

It's a graphical update of the 1999 game Outcast, which I've had on my list to play for like 15 years. You travel to a parallel universe, encounter a detailed and vibrant world with it's own culture and language. But you quickly discover some bizarre things like everyone there speaks English, many objects from Earth are laying around, and the indigenous Talan seem to think you were prophesied to come and save them from a tyrannical ruler.
A lot of the story can be discovered through breadcumbs like drawings on the walls of caves/buildings. The world is incredibly well put together and a joy to play through.

Unfortunately the nuts and bolts of the game lag behind. It's just flatly too easy. The combat is serviceable at best though for a 1999 game that's trying to combine a lot of different systems it's not the worst I've ever seen. A lot of the best quests are early in the game where you need to combine knowledge of the world with objects you find to solve specific problems. They do a nice job of making you have to think about things rather than just automatically clicking x or y. Unfortunately some of the quests mid-game devolve to a little more of the pure fetch variety. It also includes a few no-doubt Half-Life inspired physics puzzles.

The dialogs are quite in depth though somewhat one shot only. In some cases you do go back to characters you previously met for specific things, but there's not much in the way of reactivity on your progress outside of a few specific instances. I think you should have been able to talk to characters at various points for additional backstory.

Some of the locations feel empty at times and others are a little too small. But when it comes together in the best locations of the game it's as good as you can get anywhere.

I found the ending a little abrupt and would have liked a final cut scene to clear up a few things. I'm generally a fan of ambiguous endings but this one was a little too much so.

I do wish the Second Contact developers put in a little effort to clean up some of the remaining 1999 issues. It needs additional fast travel options. Some of the objects you think you can climb are very difficult to do so. It's easy to get stuck on certain staircases or stuck in water and have to swim quite a ways to get out. But overall the update of the game is pretty impressive in that it doesn't intrude on the essence of the game but brings huge convenience features like higher resolutions, key binding, better gamepad support, and an actual main menu which the original game did not have.

Outcast is well worth playing for the clever world building and intricately woven quests even if some of the other aspects of the game are lacking.
 

sabresfan129103

1-4-6-14
Apr 10, 2006
22,469
2,337
Amherst, NY
RE2: remake. Just finished the Claire scenario to get the true ending. One of the best games I've played in years. No game is a 10/10, but this one is pretty close for me. 9.5 out of 10.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,946
3,678
Vancouver, BC
Into the Breach - 8.5/10

Everything in the game works great, you have infinite time to decide your turn to figure out how to be as efficient as possible to defend your objectives and kill as many enemies as possible. My main problem is the final mission. There are two stages to the final stage. The first is simply to survive for 4 or 5 turns. It's obviously difficult, being the final mission, but I didn't have much issue with that. The second part of the stage is where my issue lies. You have to defend a bomb for 4 turns until it explodes to exterminate the alien insect invasion. The problem is that you enter a new map and don't get to pick where your mechs spawn. The insects all spawn and make their movements and I've gone into the final mission with a full power grid but got bad RNG for where my mechs spawn relative to the power cells and insects. The game itself is great but getting to that final mission and feeling like the game is determined before you even get control is incredibly frustrating. I still think it's a solid game for the price but that made me go from "this game is a must have, game of the year canditate" to "this game is great but the end game is incredibly frustrating."
Feeling that way, maybe, but in reality, I don't think this is actually the case. The final mission may become more or less difficult depending on the RNG, but there is always a way to beat it (provided you have reasonable health/spent your upgrades wisely), from what I've experienced (even on the hardest difficulty). There may be some setup/strategies/worthwhile sacrifices that are necessary that aren't immediately obvious, though. For example, if you don't have most of your base upgrades by that point, and wasted it on less useful upgrades, then yeah, you can potentially go into it without much hope. But I wouldn't consider that a design flaw.

I would agree that it isn't a super welcoming game for newcomers, though, despite giving them tons of options to manage their own difficulty and understand how everything works. It's very sink or swim, even with those options, but I love that about it.

In fact, I usually find the final battle significantly easier than the final island/getting to it, mainly because you know you can spend all the resources you've built up without worry, so there's maybe a little too much room for error afforded, if anything. If you play it right, you shouldn't be eating power bar damage more than a few times.
 
Last edited:

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,224
9,617
In fact, I usually find the final battle significantly easier than the final island/getting to it, mainly because you know you can spend all the resources you've built up without worry, so there's maybe a little too much room for error afforded, if anything. If you play it right, you shouldn't be eating power bar damage more than a few times.

There should be a hardcore mode where the power grid doesn't reset when you start the final island (I believe that it does; correct me if I'm wrong) and doesn't reset for the 2nd battle and your mechs don't reset for the 2nd battle (i.e. all damage to the grid and your mechs is carried over). That would be absolutely brutal. There wouldn't be any critiquing about it being too easy then.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,946
3,678
Vancouver, BC
There should be a hardcore mode where the power grid doesn't reset when you start the final island (I believe that it does; correct me if I'm wrong) and doesn't reset for the 2nd battle and your mechs don't reset for the 2nd battle (i.e. all damage to the grid and your mechs is carried over). That would be absolutely brutal. There wouldn't be any critiquing about it being too easy then.
Only the mech damage is reset at the beginning of each battle. Your power grid doesn't get reset when your start the battle or when you get to the 2nd battle. You have to beat the whole game with one continuous power bar.

I wouldn't call it easy (nothing in Into the Breach really is), but I usually start feeling relief rather than additional dread when I get to the final battle because the rest of the game is tougher and easier to **** up (especially if you're regularly playing the "High Vek Threat Detected" missions). If I get to that point with pretty full resources, it's a pretty safe bet to beat unless I make really dumb mistakes, I find. I mean, at that point, you can afford to let five buildings go down and kill two of your pilots twice over the course of ten (?) turns. That's a lot of leeway after being conditioned by the rest of the game to be super careful about avoiding taking grid damage and keeping your pilots alive.

On the making the game less frustrating (especially for those new to the game) side of the argument, though, I don't think giving the player an assist mode option that allows you to re-attempt the most recent battle if you get a game over rather than being forced to start the campaign all over again from the beginning would be the absolute WORST thing in the world. I like the way the challenge is currently set up, personally, but as long as it isn't the default setting, it would probably help those frustrated with it a great deal.
 
Last edited:

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,224
9,617
Only the mech damage is reset at the beginning of each battle. Your power grid doesn't get reset when your start the battle or when you get to the 2nd battle. You have to beat the whole game with one continuous power bar.

Really? I haven't played it since the Summer. Thanks for the correction. The mech damage reset must've been what I was thinking of.
 

Gardner McKay

RIP, Jimmy.
Jun 27, 2007
25,609
14,312
SoutheastOfDisorder
I don't know if one ever truly beats a game like Diablo III (Switch version) but after about 40 hours of gameplay I can honestly say it has been a blast. It is different than when it first came out. The additions have made it feel like a Diablo game again, it is fun, it is addictive. When it was first released, the game felt like a major chore.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,946
3,678
Vancouver, BC
Resident Evil 2 Remake - 0.5 (Bad)
(minor spoilers)

Only sampled the original but never fully played through it-- was kind of intrigued by the zeitgeist of it (both then and now). As someone who just generally dislikes the way that 3D games tend to look/feel, this one actually had a few positive things going for it, aesthetically-- The lighting and zombie/monster design worked together pretty well/cohesively, and I prefer the aesthetic of this video-game-y over-the-shoulder camera view over other 3rd/1st person games where you're just standing in the middle of the screen or staring at your hands. Despite all of its technological advancements, the game still looks stiff, ugly, and awkward, though, especially during cinematic cut-scenes that have a real B-movie quality that I do not believe will hold up well at all.

I like the bare bones simplicity of its design (to its credit, it's not entirely a bloated "more is more/look how much stuff you can do" game like many AAA titles tend to feel like). I found the central mechanics of the shooting/extreme bullet conservation/limited inventory/resilience of the zombies (how you can't just kill your way through it) to be the game's biggest strengths, but that's really about it.

In terms of flaws/gripes/hang-ups, the puzzles kind of felt like pointless busywork (although well integrated into the story), boss fights were uninteresting to play (predictable spectacles in the usual action-movie kind of way), the storytelling/acting (except Marvin) was dumb cheese-ball generic blockbuster nonsense and not in a good campy way, with awkward acting that feels tonally all wrong, and most egregious of all, I think they completely squandered a potentially really cool premise by making two required play-throughs that were very redundant and repetitive, not to mention lazily contradicting each other despite that being the crux of the game's structure. I did get a big kick out of Leon's gullible Mary-Sue good-guy defining feature being so easily taken advantage of, though (the reveal feels cliche of course, but it works pretty well when you think about it after the fact). Also, I ****ing hate random fan-service costumes being a feature in videogames.

A handful of admirable qualities, but overall kind of a dumb and superficial waste of time. You basically start the game, go "whoa, this feels kind of cool" for a handful of enemies, get impressed by some enemy designs, then it becomes pretty redundant/tedious busywork that's reliant on cheap shock value/laughably lame storytelling beats.
 
Last edited:

Commander Clueless

Hiya, hiya. Pleased to meetcha.
Sep 10, 2008
15,286
2,992
The Council (PC) - 7/10

Full of lots of jank, particularly in graphics and (with a few notable exceptions) voice acting...but a very interesting story if you enjoy the choose-your-own adventure style with light RPG elements.

A recommend from me.
 

Ceremony

blahem
Jun 8, 2012
113,232
15,474


Onrush (PS4, 2018)

Have you ever played Burnout Paradise, one of the Motorstorms, or Fortnite? If the answer is yes then you have some experience of Onrush. If that makes you interested in playing Onrush then I have some bad news for you though.

Where Motorstorm and Burnout were arcade racing games with an emphasis on collisions and destroying your opponents, Onrush focuses almost solely on the collisions. I feel a bit disarmed when trying to describe this, because my instinct is to say "it's a racing game" when you don't actually do any racing. Instead you have courses and you drive round at high speeds boosting and crashing into things, while one of four team-based objectives happens around you:

- Overdrive, where the team (6v6) that uses the most boost wins. You get boost by taking down opponents, getting air time, pretty much everything.
- Countdown, where gates are places on the course and you have to drive through them to add time to your team's decreasing total. First team to run out loses.
- Lockdown, where a moving 'zone' appears on track and is captured by having more of your team in it for long enough.
- Switch, where each team member effectively has three lives, and where the team loses after those have all been lost.

I've pretty much described the game in full. Single-player consists of a progression of these events one after the other with some miscellaneous objectives to aim for - type of takedown, amount of takedowns, winning margin, etc. That's it. By the time I'd finished, and with some online play included, the game said I spent 15 hours playing and, really, there's not much to take up that time. For a good amount of that time I couldn't have told you about the game types or the objectives. The game is so visually and audibly jarring there may as well not be any nuance to gameplay. I just drove round trying to crash into anything on the other team. It's a viable tactic, mostly. By the time you realise about the gates and zones things get really easy.

Speaking of being horrible visually, if you get taken down in a match you get to watch the killcam. Then pick your vehicle again. Then wait to respawn. All unskippable, every time. And if you take someone down in single-player the camera and music slows down and the camera turns to look at your opponent before snapping back to full speed, usually flinging you straight into a tree because you had to go out of your way to make the hit stick in the first place. The same can be said for post-match result screens, which are endless, long and unskippable.

With the actual purpose of the gameplay being so bland and generic you might hope Onrush makes up for things by at least making it fun or satisfying to achieve your goals. Not really. In Burnout or Motorstorm there's a real sense of movement and control of your vehicle in relation to your opponents. It's not so much a sense of weight to the vehicles as a feeling of power. They're all well balanced and control well at high speeds against other similar vehicles. You can destroy and be destroyed, effectively, and the flow of the race you're in isn't affected by the controls as you're doing this. The different courses don't vary either aside from graphically, since they all need to be quite wide and looping so you can go at full speed as much as possible. This adds to the sense of repetition in the game as well as the overall sense of vagueness about what you're actually trying to do.

Onrush has eight vehicle types grouped into a further four pairs of similar types - bikes, buggies, trucks and another one between buggies and trucks I forget the name of. They all have the same top speed. If you're given free choice you may as well pick one of the trucks, because the handling difference is negligible and you can takedown opponents by bumping into them. In addition to the weight and speed being basically the same across the field, pretty much everyone will be using boost the whole time as well. This makes it harder to separate yourself from the opposition and actually achieve anything. This is why I felt like the game washed over me at the start when I didn't know what to do, because everyone is so similar there's nothing that makes you feel like you stand out. Plus if you fall back far enough you'll just get reset to be up with the main pack anyway.

Each vehicle has a 'Rush' meter which fills up as you use boost in an event. When it's full you can trigger it for a special ability but like before, these regularly seem to make little difference to what's going on. You go a bit faster, the screen gets a bit harder to see, the game gets a bit louder. It's as if they tried to make the game as close and balanced as possible and completely nerfed any individuality or impetus each vehicle might have. A lot of the Rush abilities work best when co-ordinated with other players, but it's not exactly ideal to rely on the AI for this.

Which brings me to my final point. After reading the intro you might be wondering where Fortnite comes into this. Partly out of stylistic influence. The menus are all bright colours and generic looking characters who do stupid dances in the post-match results screens. One of them can even be dressed as a bear. You have lootboxes too of course with cosmetic items for cars and drivers, as if anyone cares what their driver looks like. But when you combine the characters and the cars with the deliberately condensed feeling of the gameplay, you see what they were aiming for. A bright, loud, bombastic experience centred around teamwork with enough piggybacking on a pop culture phenomenon in terms of presentation to get some of that interest. Since the game was released in June 2018 and offered in both PlayStation and Xbox's free games services by the end of the year, I'll let you decide for yourself what sort of playerbase they've ended up with.

There's an irony to that though. Once I'd finished with the single-player stuff I played some more online matches (I never had a problem finding one, admittedly) and had great fun. We managed to overturn a ~3000 point deficit in a game of Overdrive and won by I think 150. In other cases, focusing on the objectives generally meant easy wins. The combat aspect seemed easier online too, although I think that was down to poor hit detection more than anything else since I got pop-ups for taking down people when I was nowhere near anyone.

Ultimately I really don't really feel the urge to play the game any more than I did. I'll quite happily champion any sort of game in this genre if it's even halfway engaging, but what feels like a decent concept here (certainly since it's been done better in older games) just isn't given enough depth, either in the gameplay itself or in content. Couple that with truly obnoxious and headache-inducing sound and visuals, there's not much else to say.

PS - The O in Onrush reminded me of the O in the EA Origins logo, and I couldn't stop noticing it.
PPS - Look at the scoring stuff at the top of the screenshot. Teams have names and logos which are completely randomised. Why? What sensation is it supposed to impart on the player? I don't know who I'm trying to beat or care who it is, hell I was nearly done before I realised the names appearing above each car were the stock character names.
 

GlassesJacketShirt

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
11,439
4,199
Sherbrooke
Ace Combat 7 (PC)

Been waiting 11 years for a proper sequel to AC6. After some initial trepidation towards the early missions, I can finally say I am thrilled with its return. Beautiful to look at, thrilling to play, not much more to say.

8/10
 

PK Cronin

Bailey Fan Club Prez
Feb 11, 2013
34,153
23,507
  • The health system seems like a complete crap shoot. Let's just say you get 3 HP instead of going from green > yellow > red > dead. Sometimes you would take 1 damage, sometimes you would take 2 damage, it felt like there wasn't any rhyme or reason to it. Furthermore, sometimes a zombie would grab you and it would force you to use an item on the zombie. You weren't allow to try to save that item and just heal up, no, you just flat out die if you don't use it. Health pick ups felt lacking through most of the game and I feel like it was directly tied into the fact that damage felt completely
I think the game is better than you're giving it credit for, but it's fine if you don't like some aspects. However, I don't understand the bolded. Are you referring to the knives and grenades? I've opted to not use them before and just take the hit, I didn't die (they're more useful later on and I'd rather not waste them on a zombie I didn't notice because I was sprinting around like a moron). If that's what you're referring to, maybe you were low health already or something when you were given the option?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad