Score: 3/10 Mediocrity Score: Makes Mediocrity Look Good. I'm not going to sugar-coat it; the years between now and 1999, when Alien Versus Predator was released, have not been kind. Graphics, textures, lighting, sounds, UI, AI, and everything else unmentioned have all vastly improved during that time. All of this will become incredibly apparent as soon as you launch the game. AVP became a LAN party cult classic of the early 2000s through its chaotic multiplayer deathmatch. Players could compete between Aliens, Predators, and Colonial Marines (a fancy-pants name for Humans). Unique for its time, each race is completely different. Rather it be weapon selection, visual-modes, tools, or movement speed, each playable-race requires a different strategy and approach. It makes for a crazed deathmatch experience. Each race also has its own campaign to play through along with several bonus levels. Today, the majority of what made Aliens Versus Predator such a standout game of 1999 has been washed away. The improvements in gameplay, technical design/engineering, story, and multiplayer experience have all long since improved offering more than what was possible at the time. The AVP franchise has also seen more releases since '99 which have each sought to improve upon the original title. In 2020, AVP is more interesting as a retro-museum of what once was rather than a competent game worth your time. It's interesting on a component level, but not as a whole. Overall - in 2020, this is not a good game. It doesn't do its legacy any justice. It used to be a LAN party hit, with everyone being excited to play. Now it rarely gets brought up and it never gets picked. The multiplayer is still fun, but I'm not sure it's "$4.99-fun". If it goes on sale, and you have a group of friends interested in doing deathmatch - I'd say it would be a worthwhile laugh. A throwback to how multiplayer games once were. Thanks for reading!
Score: 4/10 Mediocrity Score: Mediocre at Best. The Age of Decadence is a strangely unbalanced turn-based CRPG. It rather uniquely takes combat out from being the main focus and pits the player into a scenario where you can take different approaches. Touted for being a game where "choices matter", the game somehow feels so linear - locking the player into a path chosen early on. Choices in the game will keep you on your toes, that is until you realize the pattern of don't trust anyone. My advice - play the demo first. Tags: mediocre, unbalanced, dialogue-heavy, cheap Play the demo first. Both very difficult and very easy. Unique in its approach, in The Age of Decadence you can 100% avoid all combat in the game by taking a more charismatic-stacked approach in your character build. The game becomes incredibly simple when you choose this non-combat route. It turns into a dialogue-heavy, point-and-click game where if you make the wrong choice you likely will be thrown into a combat situation where you will surely, and cheaply, die. Go with the combat route, and you are faced with a stacked-against-you RNG-based combat which is difficult to the point of coming off as both brutal and cheap. The one thing both routes have in common is the smoke-and-mirrors masking the cheap game-ending situations it constantly throws your way. In complete fairness reading reviews, playing the demo, or even the reading developer's own disclaimers - potential players have been warned that "there is a good chance that you won’t like it, precisely because we took too many liberties with the established design". I can't help but feel like this is akin to being told "Here's the really over-cooked steak you ordered. There is a good chance you won't like it, but since this is all intentional - we've taken an extra heavy-handed approach with its blackened design." Yet here I am, disappointed that I paid for a really over-cooked steak that has an impressive char-broiled aesthetic.
Score: 7/10 - Not Mediocre. It's hard to get me to like most strategy games, and I really enjoyed this one. Had to knock it down a whole point due to the lack of available servers & players online. Hot take: Six years after its original release, Age of Wonders III still stands as a remarkably competent and fun 4x turn-based strategy and tactical combat game. Triumph Studios two-games-in-one approach sets Age of Wonders III in a rare cross-genre we only see come out of the Total War franchise. It's immensely exciting and fun at the onset, but it does begin to drag on and show it's repetitiveness after 20-40 hours. If you're already a fan of this style game, you could very easily double or triple that number. Unfortunately, multiplayer is almost entirely dead. Single player or LAN games would be your only viable options. If you've not played this wonder of a game - I'd recommend you give this one a shot. It has a lot to offer, particularly in it's tactical combat battles. Plus - I've seen this title go on sale for as low as $7.50. That's a bargain for a game that you will easily put 30+ hours into playing. Pros: - Sprawling tactical battles spice up the long game by providing a variety challenges one must strategize on in order to succeed. - Beautiful, lush graphics that keep up with 2020 standards for strategy games. - Heroes provide an RPG-esque feel by finding loot which can be equipped along with leveling-up which provides ability points - both of which are used to further buff your hero. - High level of replayability. - "Just one more turn!" Cons: - Multiplayer is dead. Local LAN or private games are your only hope for such competition. - Campaign story is tired and uninspired. - Simultaneous turns results in some confusing and frustrating delays. Some clicks take upwards of 20 seconds to register, worrying the player that their game may have crashed. Thanks for reading! Cheers,
