The HoMM formula in this game works for me. It's the old "just one more turn, just take the pile of gold over there, and maybe the farmstead to the left, oh, there are some enemies, let's just do that fight quickly ^^ Played till 0:30 ^^ Yes, the pixel art is maybe an odd choice, but I also liked Into the Breach, so I'm neither for or against it. The story is, until now (2nd mission) just standard stuff, nothing spectacular. I doubt that there will be grand twists or deep philosophical discussions.
After being severely disappointed by Cyberpunk 2077 - not because of bugs, mind you, but just because I simply felt the desintegrated, run down, disgusting society depicted in that game did not appeal to me - I saw Mankind divided on sale and though to give it a go. From the immediate beginning I already knew that this would be better in almost every respect. It is a clear example that "more is not always better". The smaller world of Mankind Divided is more polished, the character more interesting, there are many little details, the story is better, the cutscenes are better. Just as in Skyrim, I actually *like* to simply walk around Prague. I still like Skyrim better - who doesn't prefer a norse, magical society to a desintegrated, corporate owned one - but Prague of Mankind Divided, with all its problems, is still more endearing than Night City of CP2077. So, if you are looking for a Cyberpunk game - take Mankind Divided, maybe also the Shadowrun games, Satellite Reign etc. All of them are, in my opinion, better than CP2077. And I think that is because they are smaller and pay more attention to detail.
I don't know whether it is the magic or the isometric view, but I like the Shadowrun Games much better than Cyberpunk. Maybe it's because you are not 'inside' the dystopic world, but just looking top down on it. Or maybe because the story about dragons (second game) and AIs is more philosophical. Or maybe it's because you have skills that are at least a little RPGish (charisma, biotech etc. allow you to access some additional information). The downside were the characters - they are unique, but I didn't like them much. Especially the characters in the third game I simply abhorred, apart from the "accountant vampire" - who I sadly couldn't recruit.
For what it aims to achieve, Cyberpunk is a good game. It has a highly detailed, original world. The quests are interesting. The graphics nice. The point is just that for my tastes, it is far too negative. The city shown is full of junk and garbage, depicting a desintegrated society, run down, ugly citizens in equally run down, concrete skycrapers. You have cutthroat gangs that hate and kill each other, senseless violence in TV, abuse and cutthroat corporations. It's simply not a world I would like to live in. I would rather ride a horse through Skyrim for the 10000th time. I'm simply not the target audience.
Zero Horizon Dawn has a really nice world and story. My only gripe is that it tries too hard to 'educate' its players. Apart from that, it could have been really great. (1) Story is very linear. It would have been nice to have several endings or to simply ignore the proving. After all, the villagers don't want you, so why should you try to kiss up to them? (2) Survival of early antagonists. It would have been interesting to see Bast or the girl in the beginning survive. And maybe eventually come to respect Aloy. (3) Depiction of men and women. Ok, I get that Sobeck/Gaia/Aloy are all good and wise and nice. And all female. And that Ted Faro/Hades/Helis are all evil or incompetent. And all male. And we have at least Rost and Jenna counteracting this extremely black and white world view. But after some time, it gets really tiresome. (4) Stone age utopia. This is a fantasy story, so you can of course depict utopian societies. But the suggestion that a tribal culture would work as a 'modern', 'multicultural' society is a bit wishful thinking. Just have a harsh winter, a bit of starvation or quarrel among the Nora or Banuk and these tribes would immediately splinter and break apart.
Pathfinder Kingmaker is a really good game, it just has two issues: (1) The balance between kingdom management and exploration is sometimes a bit off. You leave for some quest - and immediately a signal pops up that there is some new event of your kingdom to attend to. They should have introduced some kind of "sending a dove" or "teleportation" so that you are not constantly dragged into one or the other direction. (2) It's funny, but one of the biggest issues of Pathfinder Kingmaker is that it is literally "too large". Half as many skills and abilities, and cutting the story into smaller "episodes"/organizing them as add-ons would have made for a really great game. As it is, you simply don't have the time to tackle all this content and start to ignore minor quests. For example, establishing your kingdom and saving it from the first few threats could have made for a good game. And afterwards, you could have made a "Pathfinder Kingmaker 2" which *continues* the story of your kingdom. And then, somewhere in the third installment, you could have come across the ancient curse that explains all the hassle you have gone through to this point.
I stopped playing halfway through the game. Don't get me wrong: Baldur's Gate is certainly a good game. However, it suffers from the same lacks in world building and setting as Divinity Original Sin 2. Instead of depicting certain races - Tieflings, Aasimar, Elves etc. - as rare, secluded and enigmatic, they are thrown at you in quick succession and shown as everyday occurrence. Right in the beginning of the game, for example, you meet an entire settlement of Tieflings - in the vicinity of Baldur's Gate - who are just another kind of staple Humans who happen to have Horns. This 'sloppy' kind of writing was already present in DOS 2. A whole lot of potential was going to waste for quick "show effects" - stong abilities, powerful races and monsters were thrown at you in the first act, obviously to catch the attention of the players. It would have been very easy to start more slowly. Maybe to have the protagonists happen upon a human fisher's village after crashing, which is under attack by goblins. And a secluded druids grove that doesn't want to help. And then, somewhere in the third or fourth act, you might have come across Tieflings. Going fast and flashy is not always the best.
Let's face it: We won't get another Duke. And Serious Sam is alright as a replacement. It's always a blast in Coop, together with games like Divinity Original Sin 2, Civ & a few others. Especially nice for little skirmishes in between. And I really like to play campaigns together with friends. The only true complaint I have is that there is no LAN option. Which is why I deducted a star.
