Had I played it at launch I might have given this an even higher score. However, the translation is a bit rough as is view/navigation. Still, it is a neat game, with a mod it could easily be a battle star galactica simulator. I like the concept but with a little more story depth and a bit more variety in combat it could be fantastic. Pros: Stat-building 3d freedom Tactical Interesting universe Spaceships Cons: The time it takes to dock and launch ships The environment does not alter combat substantially Slow progress. Translated dialogue leaves some to be desired. Granted they are different types of games but if you were going to play this or Freelancer, play Freelancer. But if there were a game deserving of a remake and some polish, this would be a great candidate. Still very playable despite being old.
Best 2D worms game in my opinion (best 3D game is Worms 3D). The campain is fun with differing challenges that train you on how to use the items in an enjoyable way. Procedurally Generatable maps and prebuilt maps. The broad array of weapons and tools will give you freedom to play how you like, or force you to adapt in trying circumstances. In General, worms is a FANTASTIC multiplayer game. Great for parties, you can even play with more people than teams by assigning each person a character on a team. It's just endless fun.
The story and setting are interesting and the maps are fairly well laid out. Only a few times did I get stuck because a clickable area wasn't quite where it should be or wasn't intuitive based on both provided and contextual clues. This played a lot like the Original Fallout games from Interplay, and I liked that. The later game Cayne, felt very unpolished by comparison. Largely the writing was good, though it definitely could have been better as at times there were inconsistencies or simply an illogical premises.
I like the game mechanics, but I am guessing (like with Stellaris) in one ofthe many patches over the years they broke how the game was originally intended to be played. ...Or this is always how it was. Basically only certain nations are really meant to be played. And the way they set it up certain nations have bonuses which make them unreasonable to dealwith outside of the more historically accurate situations. In other words, if you want to play the history scenario it'll do it. However, if you want to just play a game making different decisions the game will punish you for it, and it will not work well. If you have played Stellaris or total war, you have control over how you want to play. Here it's basically dictated by which country you choose, who it wants you to fight and when. For how they built it, it is impressive that it works as well as it does. Still, it just isn't that well constructed or balanced. A game like this either the AI should have preprogrammed historical paths and then decisions in response to the situation as they see fit, or each nation should pursue victory in a way that best reflects its situation. Like civilization. Instead things just happen and it doesn't necessarily reflect the situation that nation faces. It's more like how Mario Kart relies on cheating and rubberbanding in the background rather than simply having competitive AI. Like if you go up against the automan empire, their bonuses are meant to keep them Ottomaning, but it prevents things like precision strikes to capture remote territories. Also the mechanics are designed to force very slow progress. Tech is slow, the maximum number of territories is limited in a number of ways, diplomacy is not a very viable strategy... Anyway, it's ok, but it lacks a lot of something. CK3, is similar in that it feels a bit hollow when you play. Multiplayer is probably a lot better.
