Posted on: May 20, 2015
personaminor
Gry: 495 Opinie: 8
Better off on the table
How does this game average four stars? I'm not completely against it. I was lucky enough to get to beta test it (once they finally got it up and running). It's not horrible, but I can't see a justification for more than three stars. Game play is simple enough once you get used to the interface and moving around the board. The graphics are good enough for the ambition level of the game. It seems to have enough variety to keep a player interested for quite a while, and it's nice to have a relatively straightforward online multiplayer game that doesn't require insane reflexes and loads of adrenaline (it's a nice shift of gears). Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good FPS online experience, but this is much more relaxing and thought-based. My primary issue with this game is one of format. I am a huge fan of board games; going over to someone's house for hours on end to play a dice-and-cardboard game while indulging a bit too much in less-than-healthy foods and drinks...you're talking my language. It's a great bonding experience, it can be a really fun way to blow off some steam and enjoy time off with friends, and it can also be a good way to make a few new friends: sitting across the table from each other, waiting for the next player to screw you over with a die roll or a well-played card. It's that human element that WAG misses. Instead of looking my opponent intently in the eye, I'm stuck in a room by myself, playing a game that would be much more enjoyable in a paper and plastic format. The side conversation is missing, the human bonding is absent. The mechanics and graphics are great, but if I'm going to roll dice, I want to feel them in my hands. Also, my personal preference is for a game in which the players can actively affect each other's actions. You can make it a little more difficult for your opponent to move from one area to another, but that's just not much. On the interaction scale: just not enough.
Czy to było pomocne?
