If you're looking for the ultimate tactics/strategy game, this is it -- the closest video games have ever gotten to chess. First of all, let's dismiss the Civilizations and such. Civ is great for a fun time, but playing against AI is just not a real challenge -- AI is incapable of really challenging you. Instead, it cheats, and your challenge is to find exploits it can't handle. So we need the ability to have relatively quick games so that other people can play with us. Turn based is generally better than real-time -- RTS games tend to devolve into 'who can click faster'. Frozen Synapse provides that ability, and it uses the awesome Wego system that is criminally underused in gaming: both players plan their turns, mock up what they think the opponent will do, and submit it. The game gets both inputs and resolves the turn. It gives the best of turn-based and realtime: deep thinking, but both more realistic and rapid than the approximation that is a turn, and players don't need to wait for each other nearly as much. Other advantages are that there aren't too many squad members to control, thus not over-burdening you with micromanagement as found in later turns in Civ games; the rules are simple, clear and deterministic; and since you can simulate everything before submitting your turn, there's no excuse of 'I didn't know that could happen'. There's nothing else out there like Frozen Synapse. The same dev tried to apply this formula to sports with Frozen Cortex, with mixed results. This is one of computer gaming's crowning achievements: the closest we have come to the depth and strategy of chess. Get it, and come play online.
The campaign is entirely a tutorial for the multiplayer component. The game itself is really enjoyable, with quite a few interesting options. I find this genre of games really interesting: if you want a challenging strategy game, you have to play against other humans -- AIs are just too dumb. So your options are to play an RTS, where the advantage will go to the player who can click and use keyboard shortcuts fastest; or to play a game like Antihero, where the turn-based nature of the game means you actually have to focus on strategy. 4Xs like Civ are just too long to play against other players, and their balance isn't great either. As a member of the 'challenging strategy' sub-genre (as I call it), Antihero is great. You can play asynchronous games where you play a turn whenever you get a chance. The game mechanics are fairly unique, and there's very little use of randomness, making it easy to reason about future moves. It won't blow you away, but it's a solid title that's recommended, but only if you're willing to play multiplayer.
Aside from a few minor forays into C&C, I never got into RTS games -- too much APM focus, having to jump all over the map constantly, annoying economy buildup, etc. Where was the strategy? I'd much rather have my Civ, thank you very much. Well, Tooth and Tail is different. First of all, it exists in a wonderfully realized world. The campaign has a great story if you follow it to the end. Second, the pixel art and music are sublime. Most importantly though, the RTS conventions have been rethought here. Hate jumping constantly all over the map, since it gives you a huge advantage? Well now you control a commander mouse (get it? your mouse?) who limits which part of the map you can see. It's a constraint that makes it so you don't have to hop around all the time, and APM doesn't matter. Confusing controls in RTS games and endless keyboard shortcuts? Well, the controls have been simplified to the point that you can play with a controller on split screen. Sick of spending every game building up your economy the same way? Well the economy has been simplified to the point that you just plant farms, grab gristmills, and create warrens. It's there, but it doesn't bog you down. What remains is the strategy, pure and distilled, in quick 15-minute matches you can easily have online or with your spouse on the couch. Buy it, and get it for your friends -- you won't regret it IMO.
I've played both Pirates! Gold and the new Pirates! with flashy graphics. I've spent many hours with both. While Gold is decent and parts of it are fun, the swordfighting is impossible to pull off and you end up mashing the keyboard. Also, one of the weaknesses of Pirates! is the inability to tell how dynamic the world really is -- there are things reacting to your actions that aren't obvious from the minimal feedback you get. The new Pirates! fixes all of that, so just get that game instead -- it's a real pleasure, and one of my favorite games of all time.
I avoided this game for a while because reviews were middling, but what a huge mistake. This is the best tactical game AND the best stealth game I've ever played, and I've played plenty of both. Klei has crafted a true masterpiece here, and I wish this game was popular enough for them to improve the campaign. The tactical combat here has been polished to perfection. Unlike X-Com, you won't master the game quickly and then find missions boring. The tension constantly builds up, and even when your agents are buffed up, you're in constant danger of being overwhelmed. Much of this comes from the fact that you're not eliminating the enemy here -- you incapacitate them for a few turns, and they'll be back angrier than ever as they try to hunt you down. I never would have thought stealth could work in a turn-based setting, yet this game proves me wrong. Enemies waking up after being knocked out is near-impossible to do in a realtime setting without overly punishing the player, but it works marvelously here. Every facet of the tactical game has been thought out in-depth, and it all fits together like a beautiful puzzle. The greatest weakness of the game is in the overarching campaign. In order to raise the stakes, you're playing the game in ironman (ie. rogue-like) fashion, which is something I love. But to make the rogue-likeness palatable to beginners, the game starts you off in Beginner mode, which is easily beatable (yet still nerve-wracking). This results in gamers finishing the short campaign, seeing the ending, and now being expected to replay the campaign in harder modes, where the game-proper really takes place. This is a problem. There's a reason rogue-likes don't let you get to the endgame easily. Klei was afraid to double down on the rogue-like aspects, with the result being that most players feel the campaign is too short. Additionally, the ending, while fine narratively, robs you of the motivation for replay. Nevertheless, this is a modern classic.
If you look past your nostalgia goggles, you'll find a horrible design here. Sure, the graphics are the best darn VGA graphics I've ever seen. Westwood somehow nailed light and shadow in a way that nobody else did. The graphics put both Sierra and LucasArts to shame. But outside of this narrow domain, the game is a flop. The Westwood style of adventure has no observations or descriptions outside of a few critical things on screen which robs the game of immersion. Without some comment from the protagonist (or narrator, in Sierra's case), it's really hard to know how to make sense of their unusual fantasy world. Characters pop out of nowhere and talk to you, assuming that you know who they are. Pixellated items have some use in the designer's mind, but it's nothing you'd be aware of. It's fortunate that the graphics are as good as they are, but it's just not enough. This style persisted all the way to Blade Runner, where at least knowledge of the movie helped the player interpret the meaning of game objects. In this game the world is foreign, and the limited interaction in the game doesn't help you figure it out. The worst sin committed in this game, though, is the inclusion of randomized puzzles. These puzzles actually dominate, and they involve no rhyme or reason -- just trying items in different combinations until they work. Unless you know this, you'll try to figure out a pattern -- some kind of meaning in a nihilistic world. But there is none. A limited inventory system means most of the game consists of trips to bring all reagents along to the puzzle site so you can save and reload until you get it right. It's the worst consciously bad puzzle design I've ever seen. Add in a maze or two, and you really get the idea that these guys hail from the Sierra school of bad game design. Even Sierra never stooped to 'puzzles' about random item usage, though.
