Recent reviews by JesterofShadows

The base game and it's expansions offer a great experience in what it feels like to control a civilisation on a galactic scale. Create your nation, your species, their ethics, their origin, their appearance etc and then go and expand their influence until you and you alone control the galaxy.

Even better with mods.

As a massive lover of the original D&D games (I'll summarise, I played and loved them all), a single question has plagued me about BG3: Is it a worthy successor of the original games? So I examined it both as a game in it's own right, and as a part of a larger series.

At first the game appears to be simply a reskin and overhaul of Larian's Divinity Original Sin 2 (which is also a fantastic game I might add). Visually the game is stunning, from the very first moment of body horror to the vibrant ecosystems you find yourself in. And, like all great games, it has a sound track and audio to match. The characters for the most part seem like real people, making you care about them (unless you're going for the darkest of paths). The story is well told, and has the gravitas to make you care about the events unfolding as once more players are thrust into the world of Baldur's Gate. Without spoiling too much, you are essentially one of a party of "chosen ones" (by virtue of random chance and timing than any particular prophecy or godly interference), with plenty of origin characters or custom made options available. While the game is played in real time, combat is turn-based only, but this makes sense given the nature of the game, as well as allowing for some truly creative and complex solutions to be found. Stealth is well done, opting between both magic and skill checks as needed. Your character has huge agency in the world, and the story will shift dramatically based on your actions. There are some moments where characters and lore will mention the first two games (or events therein) but they act as more fan-service than having meaningful impact, with the exception of the Dark Urge origin, which has stronger links to the first two games. That being said, the game wonderfully plays, and can stand on it's own two feet.

As part of the larger series, BG3 is oddly placed. No longer playing Gorion's Ward, it has been decades since the Throne of Bhaal events (both in lore and reality). And things have changed. Many of the characters we got to know are long since dead, with only a small handful returning, meaning it will require less knowledge of the first two games. And while graphically improved, as well as audio, the game still has the dramatic heart of the first two games, giving great script-writing and voice-acting for your pleasure. But, and I am reluctant to say this... the game feels smaller. In BG1 and BG2 your character (Gorion's Ward) visited many different maps/areas with different biomes, NPCs, features, dungeons, and many of these had very little to do with the main quest. There were even multiple cities! Basically you got to explore more of the world than just Baldurs Gate and it's environs. And that made the game world big. Making the game feel smaller is the fact your character can only get to Level 12, which does make sense from a gameplay perspective but will literally cause a tsunami of fans begging for DLC that increases level caps (as well as adding prestige classes). Classes themselves seem to struggle, though some clearly got a much better polish (looking at you Sorcerer and Warlock). Your party will also feel smaller with a MUCH smaller array of recruitable companions compared to the first two games, and all companions being pansexual horndogs (nothing wrong with it, but a little surprising) who are humanoid in description. No dwarves, gnomes or halflings among them. And the vast majority of the companions are morally "Good" (though some can be tempted to be a bit more Evil). If you decide to be an evil character, prepare to be lonely. In comparison, in the original BG1 game there was approximately twenty-five companions, of various moralities, classes and races. Oh, and you could have six in your party at once. Which was nice, because the constant going back to camp in BG3 to swap companions gets old, fast. Story-wise, the game does not continue where BG2 (ToB) left off, and as previously mentioned, very few characters return. This time around your character is facing slightly different threat, an illithid invasion, and unless you play as the Dark Urge, you will not feel like you are playing a continued BG2 game. This is a good thing though, as it keeps the series fresh and entertaining.

BG3 is an absolutely amazing game, everyone should play it. But fans of the original games will feel the difference, in the game world being smaller, less races represented, smaller companion options and lower level cap. On the plus side, this does open the door for DLC and mods to expand upon.

With continued developer and mod support over the years, this series (and game) can best be summed by a simple sentence:

"Just one more turn."

After playing the original Dying Light to death (and after finishing the original Techland zombie game: Dead Island) I was waiting for this game to come out with much anticipation. Upon release the game was a buggy mess and was missing a lot of features that made the original so much fun. Namely, it was missing a challenge.

The original had the beloved Nightmare mode (basically a wonderfully hard mode that required you and your co-op partners to work together and smartly) that the sequel didn't have. As a result, my friends and I simply up and abandoned this game for about 6-8 months.

Coming back, the difficulty has been ramped up, a lot of the bugs are gone, there is more end-game content (and the arrival of DLC) and basically the game is essentially more fun. Worth the buy now!

EARLY ACCESS REVIEW
It's a basic survival game, and the premise is pretty solid. You're lost in the ocean, and build a raft to survive. So is this game worth investing in?

Yes.

I won't lie, it's still in early access and there is clearly a lot to go, but at it's core is a lovely game, almost relaxing. And there is a lot to do. Build your raft, explore the ocean, research new things and so on and so forth.

However, I think there is still some major room for improvement.
* Menu options to adjust food/hunger rates.
* Passive Defences against the shark (Turrets, spikes etc)
* AI scripting for shark improvement (Attacking the edge is find but it seems to also attack the middle of your raft. This looks really weird).
* More enemies (other breeds of shark perhaps?)
* More building/decoration pieces (Lets improve the tech level as we go, turn our raft into a boat etc)
* Judging from the physics engine being used, I see we can't build below sea level (we have subnautica for that), but maybe something interesting?
* Decay changes on batteries.
* More ability to sail and steer your raft/boat over time.
* More story/maybe a journal log?

I got this game as a gift from my dad, who, knowing I am terrified of zombies, decided it would be hilarious to see me get eaten (note to self, he still loves me). However, I found myself enjoying a zombie game that offered new gameplay elements (beyond the skill tree that we saw in Dead Island). I am of course talking about both the parkour (and the grappling hook, so much fun) and the Day/Night cycle. Playing the game and suddenly realising you're nearing the night sequence is so much fun. Rather than choosing a Safe House, all you do is find some little house, and defend like mad.

Graphics are fairly good, even on minimum, though to get the true beauty you'll need a beast of machine. Sound was amazing. Gameplay was fairly intuitive and (shock horror) fun! Voice acting was pretty top notch, which was nice. Sadly, the only thing that let the game down was a fairly predictable storyline. However, despite that, the game is TRULY a fun game, and I hope everyone has a go (so much fun in multiplayer).

Gave this game a good hour of my time before I gave up. Why?

Was it the sub-par graphics? No. I can live with graphics being basic, but they are styled to something I'd expect in an MMO about five or six years ago.

Was it the vast emptiness? Also no. While I was on there were NO other players on at all. So these vast villages and towns felt... dead. But even then, I prefer single player games, so I can live with that.

Was it the bugs and massive lag-spikes? Yes. Falling through the terrain became all too commonplace. Several times I would spend five minutes running a metre due to a lag spike forcing me to re-run it. Also, why so much delay between acknowledging I've hit attack/move/speak/craft/open menu (it makes a sound and graphic when you do) and actually performing that function.

So why the immediate hatred for this game with just a few bugs? The truth is that there are far better free-to-play MMOs out there that nailed down the basics before they decided to get all fancy (Neverwinter, Rift, DC Universe just to name three). Yes, the player controlled villages was a cool idea, whilst every game needs a hook, you should always make a game PLAYABLE first.

Players will forgive an average game that has a good (if somewhat buggy) hook if the basics are playable. Why? They'll stay long enough to give the developers a chance to streamline the hooks.

Players will not forgive a subpar game that has a good hook if the basics are buggy? Why? They'll abandon it before the developers actually improve the game engine.

I am going to point out that I enjoyed Fallout 4. No, seriously, it was a good game.

A good game, not a great one.

So here's my review, as always, broken into sections.
]
Well, the story is actually pretty solid. As usual you emerge from a Vault completely unaware at just how ruined the world is and go on an epic quest to fix something or right a wrong. In this case it's chasing down your stolen son/avenging your spouse's murder. So far, that's pretty cool. And you know what, this is the first time in the entire series we play someone who was alive before the bombs fell, so the jarring change in the world to them does have an impact. But there are some problems I have with the story. First of all, the factions we can side with (Railroad, Institute, Brotherhood of Steel or Minutemen) are... well, boring. Throughout the game we're told the Institute is kinda like the devil and when we eventually meet them they turn out to be so openly altruistic (if a bit isolationist) that it seems as if we are dealing with two very different organisations. The scientists are seriously all "Let's save the world in a way that doesn't kill anyone" yet ignore the fact that they are openly killing people and replacing them with robots. Is there another group called the Institute. The Brotherhood also comes across as nothing but "Death to the infidels" to be honest. Okay, that's not too far from what they typically are, but it's so over the top it stops being believable and becomes jarring. The Railroad is a little more believeable (we don't trust you, but we're so desperate we don't have a choice) and yet the ONLY group you have to join (the Minutemen) follow you utterly blindly. All of these factions just seem a little, well, odd because they are so two dimensional or inconsistent. Speaking of factions, it would have been nice to see the return of the Enclave, the Followers of the Apocalypse or the NCR, all whom would have an interest in the Commonwealth in one way or another.

My other problem with the story telling was the utter lack of a karma (read: morality) system, because I think that could have changed the way the story played out as the player would be able to truly feel like the world is reacting to them. As it is, the player character, regardless of faction joined is considered, bluntly, an agreeable do-gooder with maybe a hint of sarcasm. You know what? If I'd just witnessed the end of the world, my wife killed and son kidnapped, I think I might be justified becoming a raider or joining the Enclave.

Going a bit further, in Fallout 3 and Fallout NV we saw the engine that Bethesda use for this game (ok, NV wasn't directly Bethesda, but hey, their IP) can be used to do some pretty awesome stuff. You know, like random encounters, wacky wasteland, BLOWING UP MEGATON. Sure, there are some quests and stuff, but honestly, I would have liked a wasteland that reacts to me far better.

Speaking of reacting to me, let's move on to Settlements. Great Idea, and was touted as being the "game changer". Except it was awful. Just awful. Look, I've seen what people can do, but if you're literally going to have us rebuild the world, give us more tools to do it with. Even if we have to unlock them. At the moment all construction (building) is either wood or steel, and I'm talking the debris type. Cool, keeps with the aesthetic and lore except, well... I think they missed a HUGE opportuinity. Why not unlock something new for each settlement you make? Or how about a completely new aesthetic for allying with certain factions (ie Institute get sciency stuff, BoS get more fortified stuff, Railroad get some brickwork stuff). And going further with it... sooooo much micromanagement. Assigning people is pretty simple, but then we've got to keep going back and helping them out either from a random attack or (and I personally detested this) mandatory radiant quests given out by Preston. I am SICK of rescuing people, stopping super mutants, ghouls or raiders. Seriously, this is what I expect from an MMO, not Fallout. At least give me the option to either reject or abandon those quests entirely.

Graphically, the game is pretty. There I said it. Pretty. But... well, I was running Ultra Quality and well... I kinda expected more. I mean, Bethesda, why not hire some of the people doing texture mods for Skyrim... and you know... release a better game? Graphics aren't everything, but seriously, The Witcher 2 had better graphics! Never mind a current gen game like Witcher 3!

Sound. Well, it was ok? Look, I'm no sound ♥♥♥♥♥, and really, the game was pretty good for sound quality, even the dialogue (as usual Bethesda is using the same voice actors a lot, but it seems they have actually tried this time and the voice acting range has gradually been growing from the 10 voice actors in Oblvion to about 40-50 now). Voicing the main character was a big move, and honestly, I don't mind it. My only problem with that is something Dragon Age 2 had: if the dialogue choice says one thing, but what is actually said is another, I may feel a little bit cheated).

Finally, we come to my favorite part of any Bethesda game: the mods! Bethesda did make a bit of a deal saying the game would support mods, but as of this post the creation kit (we are presuming an updated G.E.C.K.) has still yet to be released. Okay, sure, I know you want us to go out and play your game for a bit, and we all get that, but well, EARLY 2016 release for the G.E.C.K.? C'mon, we wanna mess with it! And I will tell you why the community needs it, Bethesda... we need to fix your game for you. You will see better graphics, UI, bug fixes, more build/craft options, new stuff, new lands, new creatures, maybe even the introduction of a improved Karma System. Basically, give us the tools so we can (freely) fix your game. Like we always do.

And, why, even with this enormous rant, do I reccomend Fallout 4?

Because, it is good. It is fun. And, for everything else in the game, the main thing a game needs to be, more than anything else, is fun.

Sure, LOTS of room for improvement, but that doesn't make it a bad game. It makes it a good game.

Just not a great one. Yet.

This is without a doubt one of the best games ever made, even for those who haven't read the books or played the previous games. As far as RPGs go, it offers a lot of variety in regards to how you build Geralt and what sort of person he becomes. Yes, there is even romance (and let's face it, sex, nudity etc etc). The game is a sombre one, but with some comedy to lighten things up. What really gets me is the extraordinary writing skill behind the game, as well as voice acting. By the end of the game, regardless of the choices you've made, you'll come to care for, or hate, the characters in this game. Graphically, it's the best of it's time, but the Witcher series has always been so. Gameplay can be a bit repetitive at times, but it's come a long way from the single player MMO style of the original Witcher game. On the performance side, you'll need a beast of a machine to run this game at it's peak, so if you haven't custom built your gaming desktop for this game, expect to have to lower the graphics to prevent lag. There are some issues still in the game however, mainly some of the Landmarks fail to operate (stating yet to be Explored/Conquered) when dealt with. But perhaps the worst bug is the near constant Crash-to-Desktop issue (solution: hit Quicksave... a lot).

Overall: 9/10.

This game at first seems like a regular Hack'n'Slash clone of games like Diablo 2 and Diablo 3 (the kings of the genre).

However, this does not make it a bad thing. In fact, the game has learned from them and also branched off in it's own way. My personal favourite things:
* Skills are not learned, they are based on socketed gems. And the gems level. This means you can play a templar who can summon skeletons and use poison if you wish.
* MASSIVE skill tree for when you do level up and all the bonuses are passive (which means you have a lot of customisation).
* Despite being MMO, it's a free model. The only micro-transactions are for cosmetic things.
* Play alone, with friends, a guild, who cares.

Downsides:
* There is no game currency, it's all based on an in-game barter system, meaning you may have no idea what value items are. These even goes for NPC vendors.
* Very small backpack, but (good stash size though). This isn't much of an issue, since I only collect items of decent value (rare or usuable by my character).