Werthead

Video Games: Dawn of Waaaaagh!

165 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Anyway, the ME:A reviews are coming out, and its definitely a mixed bag. Right now on Metacritic the PC version is sitting at 78%, Xbox One at 77%, and PS4 at 75%. It does sound like the console versions have some technical issues the PC doesn't have; though the PC's got some of its own problems. There was a 500MB patch yesterday on PC though that supposedly fixed some of them (not facial animation stuff though); also I swear it replaced two of the CC hair options for female Ryders, but maybe that was my imagination.

Overall, seems like pretty much all the reviewers have problems with the game, but I'm not seeing much agreement on what the problems are. Most are praising the combat and saying the writing is weak, but I've seen a few saying the writing is great and the combat/gameplay is holding it back. Some like the exploration a lot, others say its too much like DA:I (which is a negative for many people, but some liked DA:I's quest setup). Pretty inconsistent stuff.

Some of the reviews are really quite negative. Not sure if its because of the game itself or because other games have advanced beyond this recently (i.e., if this exact game had been released 2 years ago, would it score higher?).

ETA: Worth noting, there aren't actually that many reviews in the mid-70s (other than an IGN review that actually read way worse than that); its that there's a bunch of 80s (and some 90s) scores and a bunch of 60s scores. So maybe polarizing is a better word than mixed. 

Edited by Fez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Fez said:

ETA: Worth noting, there aren't actually that many reviews in the mid-70s (other than an IGN review that actually read way worse than that); its that there's a bunch of 80s (and some 90s) scores and a bunch of 60s scores. So maybe polarizing is a better word than mixed. 

I think polarizing will be the best word to describe this game. A lot of its success will depend on how satisfying the story turns out to be. Even with the obvious foibles, if the thing tells a great story it will keep the fanbase engaged.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ended up playing a bit of the story last night because impatience, and I gotta say my biggest gripe with it is how pointless the dialogue choices feel. It doesn't really seem to matter what you pick because Ryder's personality is pretty predetermined. So you can be slightly more casual, or slightly more professional, but as far as I can tell you're pretty much always saying the same thing. I've yet to see any opportunity to be a dick, and even though I dislike being a dick in games that concerns me. I really hope the conversation options open up later on, because if this is all there is I'm going to be majorly disappointed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KiDisaster said:

I ended up playing a bit of the story last night because impatience, and I gotta say my biggest gripe with it is how pointless the dialogue choices feel. It doesn't really seem to matter what you pick because Ryder's personality is pretty predetermined. So you can be slightly more casual, or slightly more professional, but as far as I can tell you're pretty much always saying the same thing. I've yet to see any opportunity to be a dick, and even though I dislike being a dick in games that concerns me. I really hope the conversation options open up later on, because if this is all there is I'm going to be majorly disappointed. 

A review I read this morning said that the dialogue options were designed to be more nuanced this time around, i.e. that Ryder can change tone during a conversation at will which is meant to be more realistic than the old Paragon/Renegade system. You raise a good point though - I haven't seen any choices yet that I would deem the "asshole option." Pragmatic is about as close as it's gotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ferrum Aeternum said:

A review I read this morning said that the dialogue options were designed to be more nuanced this time around, i.e. that Ryder can change tone during a conversation at will which is meant to be more realistic than the old Paragon/Renegade system. You raise a good point though - I haven't seen any choices yet that I would deem the "asshole option." Pragmatic is about as close as it's gotten.

Yeah the problem is that seems to be all you can do. I've only just gotten to the Tempest part so there's the possibility things open up later but up till now it's been "Would you like to deliver this next line with a slightly more jovial or professional tone?" or sometimes "Would you like to be forthright with your feelings or a bit more stoic?" And every once in a while they spoil you with all four choices at once! Nothing you pick seems to make an actual difference though. I'm planning to restart for the full release anyway and I'll pick all different options to see if the conversations actually go any differently.

On another note, it's funny how the little things can get you. Apart from the conversation issues I've mostly enjoyed what I've played of the story so far but it never gave me that Mass Effect feeling at all. Right after you take off in the Tempest though and exit the galaxy map you're greeted with the sight of the Nexus through the window, and you turn around to walk back through the ship and I noticed the lighting had changed and it was the same cold, blue lighting you got on the Normandy when you were out in space and all of a sudden I got that Mass Effect feeling again. Just because of the damn lighting change. How silly is that? 

I want to love this game dammit. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wanted this game to be good, but considering the reviews, I am saving myself money, time and above all disappointment. I hated Mass Effect 3 just for the ending, and according to the reviews that was a masterpiece compared to this.

It would have been alright for me if the gameplay sucked (it is a Mass Effect game after all, who cares for gameplay) but pretty much everyone is saying that the story sucks, the character suck and for most part there aren't Mass Effect moments, in addition to side quests being like in Inquisition.

I don't know what I was expecting to be fair. The moment when Mac Walters became the main man on this game (the same Mac Walters who changed Karpyshyn's ending for that piece of crap we got in the third game), I should have known that this game won't be anything else but a disaster.

Saying that, I still think that eventually I am going to get it (yes, I am weak), but it will be when the game will cost a peanut. Until then, I need to find something else to play? How is the new Torment game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I'm loving TW: Warhammer, the level of new material they give away plus DLC make it such a replayable game.

Indeed. I don't think I've played another TW game where I actually finished the campaign with more than one faction, except maybe Medieval 2. So far I beat the campaign with The Empire at least once, Clan Angrund, Bretonnia, and the Wood Elves, and currently doing pretty well in a Dwarf campaign. Unfortunately, I cannot quite bring myself to finish a campaign with either the Vampire Counts (I don't find them that fun to play), or the Greenskins (maintaining fightiness gets exhausting). But I do appreciate CA for making the effort to give each race a different play style. 

I also decided to try some mods that add a bunch of maps to the campaign, thanks to the map assembly kit CA released. The mods modify all the settlements, making them look less the same, and more in tune with the culture that own them. It finally makes siege battles a bit more interesting, and battles at non-walled towns better. The defender can actually use the terrain to their advantage. That being said, I think they have some bugs, because I defended a walled Dwarf town that looked like a Bretonnian city. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polygon is a source I often find myself agreeing with on reviews. They gave Andromeda a 7.5, which feels about right to me. They criticized the aforementioned quirks as well as the menus (which I agree are pretty bad) while praising the story, atmosphere of discovery and interactions with crewmates. I'm very encouraged by their description of the crew loyalty missions and the emotional investment in these characters. The free trial didn't afford much time for that aspect to percolate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ran into a pretty annoying design issue in Stellaris. I had just forced an enemy empire to cede a whole bunch of systems to me after I bombed and occupied most of their planets. This expansion was apparently the last straw for a couple other empires bordering me that I had once been friendly with, and they closed their borders to me immediately after the peace treaty was signed. This cut off most of my fleets from my empire, with no way to get back to me (they can't go all the way around galaxy because one empire on the far side of the galaxy that happens to block the only way back (hooray for hyperlanes travel) also has closed borders to me.

The only option is for me to declare war and then I can move my fleets freely through those systems since there's a war. The problem is, as a relic from when I had been friendly with those empires, I was still an associate (not member) of their Federation. To declare war I need to cancel that association; however, canceling an association starts an unbreakable 10-year timer where neither side can declare war on the other. Which means I need to wait 10 years with the vast majority of my fleets cut off from me, with no other options available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my Dwarf campaign for TW: Warhammer, I'm getting a kick out of the grudges you have to settle. I had to send a hero do some damage to Karak Ziflin, in order to punish the Dwarfs there because they had the balls of stealing away this great cook who knows how to make a pudding that the king loves. Nevermind that doing any kind of hero actions will damage relations with another factions, the grudge had to be settled, dammit!!! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Corvinus said:

Indeed. I don't think I've played another TW game where I actually finished the campaign with more than one faction, except maybe Medieval 2. So far I beat the campaign with The Empire at least once, Clan Angrund, Bretonnia, and the Wood Elves, and currently doing pretty well in a Dwarf campaign. Unfortunately, I cannot quite bring myself to finish a campaign with either the Vampire Counts (I don't find them that fun to play), or the Greenskins (maintaining fightiness gets exhausting). But I do appreciate CA for making the effort to give each race a different play style. 

 

I've got almost all of the TW games and I haven't completed a full campaign since Med 2. That says a lot. Firstly that the games became so large and unwieldly, and also that they just got really boring the further you go on. The bigger your empire the more of a drag the game becomes. Warhammer doesn't quite have that problem, mainly because you feel like the different races have genuine differences, so when you start facing a new race you have to change your tactics and army make up. 

Then you feel like you want to try out all the different playstyles of the races, which keeps you coming back again. The previous games really had none of that. All the factions in most of the games were pretty similar, or identical. I mean there was an interesting challenge in Attlia of playing as Rome, which was very different to playing as the Huns, but essentially the battles all feel the same. The more realism they add the less variety there is. Rome 1 had some silly units but it added to the variety of the game. 
 

1 hour ago, Corvinus said:

In my Dwarf campaign for TW: Warhammer, I'm getting a kick out of the grudges you have to settle. I had to send a hero do some damage to Karak Ziflin, in order to punish the Dwarfs there because they had the balls of stealing away this great cook who knows how to make a pudding that the king loves. Nevermind that doing any kind of hero actions will damage relations with another factions, the grudge had to be settled, dammit!!! :P

I do really enjoy playing the game on a role play level, whether thats settling grudges as dwarfs, destroying everything as chaos, hunting the undead and chaos as certain empire characters. This game allows you to do that and almost rewards you for it as well. Its not just about endlessly expanding outwards like the other games inevitably end up being about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I wish the grudges were a little more randomly generated (like that Karak Ziflin example) and fewer "this one army razed a town, now watch them Benny Hill across the landscape!".  The way I ended up settling all my grudges like that was simply wiping out the faction that I incurred a grudge against.  Which is, I suppose, suitably Dwarfy.  

TW:Warhammer is pretty much an unmitigated success in my mind.  There are a few things I'd tweak (and often can!) but mostly I want more.  A horde Necromancer faction that buffs the undead and Raise Dead VC ability but can't recruit Vampires.  Skaven.  More faction/Legendary Lord starts for challenge modes.  Skaven.  Minor factions like Estalia, Tilea, Kislev, or the Kraka Drak dwarfs.  Skaven.  A more engaging Chaos campaign/mechanic.  And Skaven, of course.  Fortunately, CA seems to wish they could do that and are only limited by manhours in doing so.  

e:  I forgot that I'd like them to do a small makeover of the original 4 factions to make them as unique as the DLC races, who all had more unique mechanics than the starting 4.  While the variety is really impressive already, they clearly learned a lot and were able to stretch their imagination as they went along so some of the starting 4 have a few weird quirks compared to the DLCs.  Just compare the offices of the WElves and Empire:  the former give much more significant and unique benefits.  

Edited by MerenthaClone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fez said:

Ran into a pretty annoying design issue in Stellaris. I had just forced an enemy empire to cede a whole bunch of systems to me after I bombed and occupied most of their planets. This expansion was apparently the last straw for a couple other empires bordering me that I had once been friendly with, and they closed their borders to me immediately after the peace treaty was signed. This cut off most of my fleets from my empire, with no way to get back to me (they can't go all the way around galaxy because one empire on the far side of the galaxy that happens to block the only way back (hooray for hyperlanes travel) also has closed borders to me.

The only option is for me to declare war and then I can move my fleets freely through those systems since there's a war. The problem is, as a relic from when I had been friendly with those empires, I was still an associate (not member) of their Federation. To declare war I need to cancel that association; however, canceling an association starts an unbreakable 10-year timer where neither side can declare war on the other. Which means I need to wait 10 years with the vast majority of my fleets cut off from me, with no other options available.

I have no idea how the game works, but from my reading of it; can you declare war on the "one empire on the far side of the galaxy" so your fleet can go through there and come back to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

TW:Warhammer is pretty much an unmitigated success in my mind.  There are a few things I'd tweak (and often can!) but mostly I want more.  A horde Necromancer faction that buffs the undead and Raise Dead VC ability but can't recruit Vampires.  Skaven.  More faction/Legendary Lord starts for challenge modes.  Skaven.  Minor factions like Estalia, Tilea, Kislev, or the Kraka Drak dwarfs.  Skaven.  A more engaging Chaos campaign/mechanic.  And Skaven, of course.  Fortunately, CA seems to wish they could do that and are only limited by manhours in doing so.

I still don't understand, nor will I even wish to understand the way they did sieges. I suppose it has to do with the AI being shitty, and rather than trying to fix that, they imposed all those ridiculous limits (which is something Werthead mentioned in a previous thread) That, and the continuous abuse of the "forced march" stance by the AI are my main two beefs with the game.

On the factions, the 2nd game will more than likely have the Skaven, and I'm sure the other undead faction I'm aware of, The Tomb Kings, will be added at some point, too. I don't know if they're a horde faction, but I hope they have ranged units, that's one thing I dislike about the VC. 

And I agree that the minor factions like Estalia and Tilea should have been better developed. The game feels incomplete without those factions being properly developed. Even if you don't make them playable, I still wish they had given them some unique personalities, that way when you war against them, you're not essentially fighting The Empire. And it would have been cool to have Tilea, the Border Princes, and Estalia playable, as more than likely that would have involved some kind of mercenary mechanic. Imagine an army comprised of regiments of renown from various races. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The VC not having ranged units is a core part of what makes them unique, why would you change that?  And calling the map undeveloped because of the minor factions is weird given how previous games had almost no differentiation between the factions at all.  Like, I suppose its an issue of tone:  I want to see more but I'm not dissatisfied with the current state at all or at release, whereas it sounds like you are.  I've played Warhammer far more than any of the previous TWs except M1 and M1:VI (I was also a small child and so unemployed at the time).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

The VC not having ranged units is a core part of what makes them unique, why would you change that?  And calling the map undeveloped because of the minor factions is weird given how previous games had almost no differentiation between the factions at all.  Like, I suppose its an issue of tone:  I want to see more but I'm not dissatisfied with the current state at all or at release, whereas it sounds like you are.  I've played Warhammer far more than any of the previous TWs except M1 and M1:VI (I was also a small child and so unemployed at the time).  

Yes, I understand that the VC ranged unit thing is part of their traits, I was not demanding that CA change that, I was simply expressing one of the reason why I don't care for the VC much. Also, I never said I was ok with how CA did the predecessors, so I think my complaint/wish about wanting them to make a more complete game is perfectly legitimate. I've also described what are my two main problems with the game, and neither have to do with the completeness or the diversity presented in the game. But despite all this, I, too greatly enjoy the game, and my play time for it has, so far, overtaken Attila and Shogun 2, and may overtake Rome 2 as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at my a friends house the other day and noticed he had a Wii U gathering dust. So he let me borrow it to play Zelda and I am happy. I'll still almost certainly get a switch at some point (especially if they release an english version of Seiken Densetsu 3) but now there's no rush. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After speaking with the good people at the local computer megastore to make sure the speeds and such were compatible with my motherboard, I bought new 2x8GB RAM to replace my old 2x4GB RAM. And I successfully installed it too (though the 1070 is so large in my case that I had to remove it while replacing the RAM; and jeez wasn't that fun); the PC is up and running again and everything. So that's cool.

I was debating future proofing and getting 32GB, but that's kinda pricey still. Also, it doesn't sound like my motherboard can handle DDR4; so by the time 32GB starts becoming the recommended spec I may just want to get a new machine at that point anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor but cool detail I just noticed: Some characters in Andromeda will call your character by their first name if you leave it as the default. Pretty nice addition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Corvinus said:

Yes, I understand that the VC ranged unit thing is part of their traits, I was not demanding that CA change that, I was simply expressing one of the reason why I don't care for the VC much. Also, I never said I was ok with how CA did the predecessors, so I think my complaint/wish about wanting them to make a more complete game is perfectly legitimate. I've also described what are my two main problems with the game, and neither have to do with the completeness or the diversity presented in the game. But despite all this, I, too greatly enjoy the game, and my play time for it has, so far, overtaken Attila and Shogun 2, and may overtake Rome 2 as well.

I really enjoying playing vampires. There's a lot of tactical nuance to using them, feels far more Rock Paper Scissors, because they have no ranged it means you don't just camp , you have to be proactive.

my favoured tactic is having 2 stacks, the first one full of zombies that I use to swarm into the enemy and a second stack full of more mobile troops to flank them. 

The reason I don't play as dwarfs is because it's too easy to just sit there and do nothing and still win.

I also don't play elves because forest maps are basically unplayable 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   1 member