Posted May 18, 2010
A 3 star review for this classic? OMGWTHBBWSauce! I know, but hear me out. I think a lot of people that sing the game's praises are either purely nostalgia driven or only played through the first few hours.
The first 4-5 levels of the game are indeed great fun. The game is addictive, has charming aesthetics, and the colony building and management is quite engrossing - but only for the first couple levels. The problem is that after level 5, you've done pretty much everything there is to do in the game, and it becomes *incredibly* formulaic after that. The levels differ in geographic layout and that throws some slightly different tactical challenges at you, but for the most part, you build the same buildings, in the same order, and follow a very tedious and staid progression of leveling up soldiers, and slowly advancing with military buildlings and attacking (in the game's own limited way). The game is never particularly challenging; it requires patience more than real thought. If people run into trouble it's more likely because they didn't want to sit around buildling up a colony for 6-8 hours before attacking.
The game makes for a great couple hours but there just isn't enough depth or variety in either the buildling or a tactical options to keep the game interesting for 10 maps - and forget about the world campaign. It can also be painfully slow, and a I truly don't mind slow games, but I can say that Settlers 2 is the only game I've played where I can read a book while playing and still do well in it - this is not a plus point...
Several of my PC gaming friends have very fond memories of the game and I'm sure they would rate it 5 stars like many here. However, upon talking with them after playing the game myself, I found only 1 of the 5 that played it actually finished the original (Roman) campaign. They remember the opening levels of the game fondly enough to make them forget that they got bored with it before finishing 3/4 or even half of it in some cases - and asking around on forums, this doesn't even seem to be that uncommon an experience. I, however, don't have the benefit of nostalgia and I was expecting a game that would be great for at least 10 levels. Instead, I got a very entertaining game for 5 levels and a very boring game after that. Maybe I'm a victim of having my expectations set too high, but even so, I was expecting a lot more from the game. It just wasn't entertaining for long enough for me to rate it any higher.
If or when you hear people praising the game I would just ask them if they've played it since 1996, and whether they actually finished it when they did.
The first 4-5 levels of the game are indeed great fun. The game is addictive, has charming aesthetics, and the colony building and management is quite engrossing - but only for the first couple levels. The problem is that after level 5, you've done pretty much everything there is to do in the game, and it becomes *incredibly* formulaic after that. The levels differ in geographic layout and that throws some slightly different tactical challenges at you, but for the most part, you build the same buildings, in the same order, and follow a very tedious and staid progression of leveling up soldiers, and slowly advancing with military buildlings and attacking (in the game's own limited way). The game is never particularly challenging; it requires patience more than real thought. If people run into trouble it's more likely because they didn't want to sit around buildling up a colony for 6-8 hours before attacking.
The game makes for a great couple hours but there just isn't enough depth or variety in either the buildling or a tactical options to keep the game interesting for 10 maps - and forget about the world campaign. It can also be painfully slow, and a I truly don't mind slow games, but I can say that Settlers 2 is the only game I've played where I can read a book while playing and still do well in it - this is not a plus point...
Several of my PC gaming friends have very fond memories of the game and I'm sure they would rate it 5 stars like many here. However, upon talking with them after playing the game myself, I found only 1 of the 5 that played it actually finished the original (Roman) campaign. They remember the opening levels of the game fondly enough to make them forget that they got bored with it before finishing 3/4 or even half of it in some cases - and asking around on forums, this doesn't even seem to be that uncommon an experience. I, however, don't have the benefit of nostalgia and I was expecting a game that would be great for at least 10 levels. Instead, I got a very entertaining game for 5 levels and a very boring game after that. Maybe I'm a victim of having my expectations set too high, but even so, I was expecting a lot more from the game. It just wasn't entertaining for long enough for me to rate it any higher.
If or when you hear people praising the game I would just ask them if they've played it since 1996, and whether they actually finished it when they did.
