GOG Patron
I can't say much about the game that hasn't already been said in countless other reviews, so I'll relate how my experience with the game went. I have vague memories of starting the game, wandering around Seyda Neen, and not really understanding what a "silt strider" is, so I decided to walk to Balmora. I was very nervous and spent a lot of time deciding whether to peek inside Adanumuran or not. The caldera gave me creepy vibes and I sped through it as best I could, and then.... Then I reached Balmora and thought it was super impressive, and spent a lot of time wandering around and getting to know the NPCs. I also have memories of going to Vivec city for the first time and being overwhelmed by its size and layout, wandering like a tourist and trying to figure out how the city was interconnected. When I first got the game, in the mid-2000s, I still had access only to the family PC, and my time on it was limited. To make the most of my time, I got into the Construction Set pretty early in my playthrough and created a simple home for myself, with a bunch of storage, and set the entrance to be a ghostly door outside of Clagius Clanier's shop, since that was near to the entrance of the Mages Guild. Some of my other notable memories are building up Raven Rock on Solstheim (I loved that quest chain) and finally walking up to Ghostgate. All of these memories are dear to me, but they make me worried, because I doubt I will have the same experience if I tried to play the game again after all these years (and many other games played). So, for now, I keep my existing memories close, and keep the installation of the game ready, for some day, I shall return again.... to Morrowind.
This game, in general, is something you rarely see. Apparently, it started as a Diablo clone, but then incorporated control combos for spells as the main combat feature; that alone is quite remarkable. Most of the game systems are basic, but they are functional and they are smooth to use: inventory management is basic but does the job well, character progression is basic but works nicely, the dialog system is, eh, functional. The amount of text in the game is remarkable, and all the dialogs are voiced, but the quality of the voice acting varies a lot. I think it would have worked better if the lines were shorter, and if they were delivered faster, because otherwise it's painful to have to wait for the actor to get through a full paragraph of text. It's kind of a shame because the setting is pretty original and it's quite clear the writer really had a lot of interesting ideas. The puzzles are quite innovative, I would say. There are classic "fetch the item and unlock something" puzzles, but there are also combination locks, and even a few physics based puzzles. There are even optional puzzles for extra loot. Graphically, the game is OK for its time, but the monster design, and especially the design of demonic enemies is brilliant, and quite original. It's quite clear that this game was a work of passion, by people who really wanted to make something they would be proud of, despite it not being a smash hit. If you want to play something with a completely original setting, mechanics that embody the slightly odd, experimental ideas of the 2000s, and you're OK with very active combat, then check this game out for sure.
I can't add much that other reviews haven't already, but I will side with the (relatively) low-voted ones that state that this game is ROUGH. Almost all the elements that would make Heroes 3 what it is, are present, but in a very basic state. Different towns are there, but not many of them; the army size is severely limited with only 5 slots; heroes are there, but only a few of them. Magic (which is my least favorite aspect of HoMM games) is terribly unbalanced and you are almost forced to use it to win. I do recommend the game to collectors or people interested in game design and who want to see how the series evolved over time, but I also highly recommend using cheats to play through, or playing for a bit and then watching the rest online. It's pretty, but it's not friendly.
So, disclaimer: I haven't gotten around to playing SE5 yet, so I can't comment on that one. I have played SE3, A LOT, and I've played SE4 a little bit. SE1 and SE2 I've watched, and to be honest, they're more like 90s tech demos than standalone games. They showcase some features that will be a staple of later games, but they are rough. So, Space Empires 3 is one of my all time favorite 4X games, despite all the clunkyness. The sheer scope of things you can do in that game, as part of running an empire, is astounding. Espionage, diplomacy, research priorities, design, economy optimization, military organization, etc. And that's not even counting the multitude of approaches you can take with ship designs. Wanna be Federation and have phasers and torpedoes and shields? Sure. Wanna focus on fighters and carriers, like Galactica? Sure, but it's going to be hard in the beginning. Romulans, with cloaking devices and plasma? Got ya covered. Massive baseships with shipyards on them? I think so, but you better make sure your economy can take it. Now, all this makes it sound a bit nicer than it is, because, for the most part, the AI is pretty bad overall. But that never really stopped me from having fun in a galaxy with pacifists, xenophobes and other assorted cranky empires. I also like the military intelligence aspect of SE3 (and 4); the systems on the galaxy map have warp points connecting them, and those points become key points in any conflict. You forgot to keep a sentry in a system that is a key connection for your territory? Tough luck, someone moved a fleet through there and parked it in a nebula and you have no idea unless you go and check. It's just great. Now, real quick, I tried playing SE4, and I liked how much stuff it adds, but I quickly gave up because of the user interface. It's just bad and visually confusing to me, compared to the relatively clean UI of 3. If you're into the history of 4X games, definitely check some of this series.
I was surprised by the amount of criticism in the top rated reviews here, and while I do acknowledge that there are design flaws with Syberia, I see them more as background noise. I first played this game in 2008, and after playing Syberia 2, so even then I approached it as a slightly aged game. Yes, the movement is clunky, the inventory is largely pointless and the puzzles are lightweight, but I didn't notice any of that because the game is just beautiful to look at, listen to and breathe in. Almost every screen is gorgeous, and I found that I enjoyed walking into a location for the first time and just taking it all in. I see that a lot of people point this out as a con: there are a lot of locations that are just "in-betweens", and I can understand that being bad design in an action game where the pace is important, but here, I just don't mind it at all. As far as I'm concerned, it's as if they built extra locations to show off Benoit Sokal's art, and I am on board with that. The soundtrack is a classic, albeit a short one, and I've enjoyed it both in game, and listening to it in general What I think has aged poorly are the graphics; the early 00s were rough in that sense, and it really shows here. The art direction is good, I think, but the graphical quality brings it down. The length of the game is the other thing I found disappointing, and you really need to consider this a "part 1", with Syberia 2 being part 2; both should be played together, to have a realistic impression of what the game is doing. As far as characters go, I never had a problem with any of the characters in the first two games. It's only from the third one that I feel the quality of writing and voice acting goes downhill. I would recommend this to people who can stomach early 00s graphic adventure design, and who are willing to view the game in the context of the time when it was released.
I'll mostly copy my review of Warcraft 2 here: Warcraft 2 was the first PC game I played, and so I can say that my review will be somewhat biased. Thinking back on it (and having watched some playthroughs online recently) I can say that I think the game still holds up, as long as the player has an open mind and is willing to accept what it was in the context of its time. What it was was groundbreaking, having combined the fast paced tactical gameplay with the Civ-like tech progression that unlocks bonuses and new units, but without the issues of the first Warcraft game (unit selection, balancing, etc). Both playable races are fairly well balanced (for single player, anyway) but have only slight differences between units and abilities. Most of the difference is cosmetic, which is fine for me, since the worldbuilding compensates for the lack of unique aspects of each race. The worldbuilding is superb, and the mission briefings get your blood pumping, while the chapter cutscenes are deliciously campy. The world seems mysterious, a little grim, but still habitable, which is something that I enjoyed in some areas of World of Warcraft years later. The excellent soundtrack helps with this immensely. My main gripes with this game are the no-building missions, which I always found too difficult for my skill level, and the bonkers level of overall difficulty in the expansion. Warcraft 1, on the other hand, is a different beast, and I found it nearly unplayable due to the clunky base building (roads!), and the limited control of units. I watched a playthrough of it, and enjoyed that, due to the charming but vague setting that was slapped together for this game. It's a historically significant game and deserves attention, but I think only a few people will enjoy playing it.
Warcraft 2 was the first PC game I played, and so I can say that my review will be somewhat biased. Thinking back on it (and having watched some playthroughs online recently) I can say that I think the game still holds up, as long as the player has an open mind and is willing to accept what it was in the context of its time. What it was was groundbreaking, having combined the fast paced tactical gameplay with the Civ-like tech progression that unlocks bonuses and new units, but without the issues of the first Warcraft game (unit selection, balancing, etc). Both playable races are fairly well balanced (for single player, anyway) but have only slight differences between units and abilities. Most of the difference is cosmetic, which is fine for me, since the worldbuilding compensates for the lack of unique aspects of each race. The worldbuilding is superb, and the mission briefings get your blood pumping, while the chapter cutscenes are deliciously campy. The world seems mysterious, a little grim, but still habitable, which is something that I enjoyed in some areas of World of Warcraft years later. The excellent soundtrack helps with this immensely. My main gripes with this game are the no-building missions, which I always found too difficult for my skill level, and the bonkers level of overall difficulty in the expansion. Other than that, this is probably one of my all time favorite games.
The Longest Journey has been one of the seminal influences on me, especially in terms of how I view the world, existence, perception and other philosophical concepts. I played it first when I was in my late teens and it was an eye-opening experience back then. I couldn't believe that someone could write such a story and make it playable; it made me think deep on what I think and believe, and I loved the presentation of the game, the art style and music. However, looking back on it now, I see the gray hair, the wrinkles and the stiff joints. The puzzles are mostly free of moon logic, but they are also a bit simplistic and bare-bone. The writing and the characters are a mixed bag; some are great, like Westhouse, Crow and April, but most of the others are more sketches than characters. Some dialogs are amazing, but some are purely functional. On top of that, the latter part of the game, roughly from the point after the Alchemist's tower, feel a bit rushed compared to the leisurely pace of the early game. That being said, the core concept of the story still holds up very, very well, and has lost nothing over the years. Dualistic beliefs are very old, and people feel them deep down in one form or another, regardless of personal beliefs. The art and music has also held up excellently, and the game can still be a pleasure to play for that reason alone. Voice acting is also excellent, and has no trace of underacting. Having played the rest of the series (Dreamfall and Chapters) I am even more inclined to view this game as its own standalone thing, which has been expanded on a bit artificially. I mean, there's nothing wrong with that, plenty of franchises have done it well, including this one (the design problems of Dreamfall notwithstanding). That being said, I can recommend this game to anyone with a tooth for 90s adventure games.
As many other reviews have said, this is a fairly shallow game, with few real mechanics and a bunch of mini-games. The story is paper thin, the visual style is OK, but nothing remarkable. But man, it is A METRIC TON of fun! Yes, it's repetitive; but it doesn't matter because I can basically feel the sweet sea breeze as I sail out of a port in a new ship with a band of vicious pirates behind me, to find out what kind of trouble I can get myself into this season. Yes, the mini-games get annoying, but a lot of them are not really mandatory (as far as I can remember) so you can take a break from some for a while. Yes, the world has very little permanence, but it's so damn charming, and you start to feel like you're in an actual place after a while. I loved getting involved in wars as a privateer and taking over forts and cities and such. I would plan my whole seasonal activity around that: plunder ships so I can get a lot of crew in, high morale, all that, and then trek through the jungle so I can attach a city from the rear where they least expect it. Again, as other reviews have said, if you're looking for a realistic or hardcore or deeply strategic experience, this is probably not the game for you. But if you're looking for a happy-go-lucky take on the Pirates of the Whatever kind of media, it can be an excellent time.
Looking at a lot of the other reviews here, I see two contrasted opinions, hostile to one another: either this is the greatest game ever, or it's a mess with weird pacing and no story. The truth, in my opinion, is that it's neither; it's an excellent RPG that is simply not for everyone. Compared to the first game, which was a Star Wars piece of media through-and-through (and also a video game adaptation of "The Hero with a Thousand Faces"), this game has very different design priorities. It tries to deconstruct almost everything that SW is based on, and then spin a very personal story in whatever is left after the dust settles. You're not exactly saving the galaxy anymore, you're trying to deal with skeletons in your closet and broken relationships with people from your past, all the while picking up similarly broken weirdos who are willing to join you in your leaky space boat. And you know what, that's a great story right there, if you like that sort of thing. If that's your thing, then the mechanics will be just fine, the game plays OK even today (as long as it runs), and I see the combat and character building as secondary to the story and atmosphere. However, if you want a classic "save the world" adventure where you know who's good and who's bad, probably give this one a pass. For anyone interested in an in-depth review explaining the relationship of the two KotOR games, and SW in general, with "The Hero with a Thousand Faces", I recommend that you look up a video essay named "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 1 & 2 Vs. Joseph Campbell" by Noah Gervais. He goes into more detail about this, and I consider it the ultimate review of these two games.