First things first: Shadowruns are tactical games with some rpg elements, similar to Jagged Alliance 2, or Fallout Tactics. Tested formula works: - the gameplay loop of getting contract-fulfill contract-hit on contacts is enjoyable - brilliant soundtrack - the game looks stylish, with local flavor. - close to the source material Dragonfall's problems were not solved: - not much conversation with the team during the tactical phase, followed by infodumps during downtime - some builds are useless (eg. shaman) - not much reactivity from the game world (eg. a ghoul companion is usually not recognized as such) - choices are mostly color Innovation? 1: hacking This was criticized in Dragonfall, and the developers implemented a real time version. Unfortunately, the controls were not updated with this in mind, and are pretty unresponsive. This is not a problem in turn based, but makes RT hacking frustrating. Fortunately, one can just apply the brute force method. The player base seems to be evenly split on this. 2: stealth missions Spice things up with stealth missions? Why not? Unfortunately this is also undermined with the unresponsive real time controls. (solution would be Invisible Inc.) 3: more flavor, better storytelling, but linear design The contracts are more varied than before, the props are distinct, but in the meantime the layouts are also simplified. The numerous approaches, multiple chokepoints, alternative routes from Dragonfall are mostly gone. 4: roleplay More dialog per companions is good, right? Yes and no. The writing is above the industry standard, but doesn't really work with the tactical coombat-roleplay scene gameplay loop. Characters are mostly silent when shooting, but they never seem to stop talking during downtime. I felt that the NPCs with less dialog were more memorable, such as Kindly Cheng and Strangler Bao. Overall I think this is a nice tactical game, and despite the changes hurting it a bit, the foundations proved to be solid.
I very often see reviews not detailing what this game is, and even more confusing is that it often gets into roleplay game charts. Since this might cause a misunderstanding, and unhappy players, I think we should set this straight. This is a tactical game set in the Shadowrun universe, which uses a very similar (or same?) game engine like XCOM: Enemy Within, with a few RPG elements added on top. If you played Jagged Alliance 2 back in the day, this is quite close. PRO - the general loop of fulfilling a contract, hitting up on contacts, spending some money works well - the actual contracts are interesting, and often challenging - there is not inventory management like usual in RPGs. For example ammo is infinite, you just have to reload sometimes. I like this, cuts some of the tedium. - the actual roleplay elements, like the talks with your core team are okay. Not outstanding, but not bad either. Considering SR: Returns (or JA2), it is a big leap forward. - the actual contract areas are very well designed, always with multiple approaches. No tunnels with enemies. - the game looks like Shadowrun should, very stylish and easy on the eyes - very good representation of actual pen and paper shadowrun games, also close to the source material CONS - since mostly there is no conversation with the team during a contract, the infodump between two actions scenes can drag on. Here it is managable, but Hong Kong is unbearable. - some possible character builds are really useless. (eg. summoner shaman) - choices are mostly for color. There are no real consequences, until very late game, even if the situation simply begs for it. - the AI is quite bad. They often only act once, even when they could take three actions I think this formula is brilliant, we didn't have this kind of game since Fallout Tactics and Jagged Alliance 2. However, positioning the game as a CRPG was not really a smart decision.
Back to the wasteland, where Fallout 2 left off. Pros: - this is not really a wasteland anymore, rather post-post-apocalypse. Nice change if you ask me. - lots of memorable characters, and some of my all-time favorites. (Joshua Graham) - stylish, and immersive, with internal logic - no level scaling. Yay! (I understand this is debatable, but I love this) - usually multiple solutions for the same quest. Sneaky and pacifist (mostly, not sure about animals) is possible. - the reactivity of the world is great - surprisingly low number of collect X filler quests Cons: - looks were outdated even in 2010. Bloodlines from 2004 looks better :) - that game engine is disasterous - the companion mechanics (not personalities) are not really thought out - Caesar's legion is mostly comic book evil. Unfortunately not even close to the antagonists of the originals (the Master and the Enclave) - while Fallout always had a wild west background theme, the amount of checkered shirts, cowboy hats and sixshooters a bit too much in this game. New Vegas is a game where you actively have to forgive it's mistakes to love it. If you can, this is still an enjoyable ride!
While Witcher 3 is a well-known and well-loved game, which manages to be at least average, but often great in everything, it has some problems. I thought a summary might be useful. PRO - storytelling and writing is the new top standard of the industry. Simply superb. Even simple fetch quests have quality writing and voice acting, some side quests are as memorable as the main questline. - well developed, and logically evolving characters. Very few overused clichés, even extras are memorable - the established characters are used to full effect - the opposing monsters are really well thought-out gameplay-wise - eastern european wibe is unique in PC gaming - the classic folk tales are very well integrated - Corvo Bianco is the only player stronghold that I actually liked. And I have a quite long history with rpgs. CON - some scenes I found a tad long, especially considering there is no pause option - item rewards (and loot) in this game is hopeless. Witcher 2 was much better in this regard. Please don't give me your 300 year old family heirloom sword, I will sell it anyway. - surprisingly ugly armor designs. Most of the armors look worse than W2. Crafted witcher gear and DLC armors are fine, but the rest? - controls are a bit unresponsive. Better than W2, but even after three full playthroughs, I find myself falling down from towers. UNDECIDED - Gwent. The play is nice, but I find it immersion breaking - Character development. I think the intention was to change the active skills based on the monsters, but it doesn't really work. Also, about a third to half of the skills is useless. - I found handholding is a bit too strong. Sometimes it is shameful level step-by-step guide, like enter the house what the quest marker already points to and also highlights with red... I have nothing new to add to the praise of others. This game is the new industry gold standard. Congrats to the developers, or rather Thank you!
This game (and it's precedessor) is easily the game of the last decade for me, I don't even want to know how much time I spent on it. The good: - best melee simulation - best archery method - most satisfying mounted combat - brilliant mod support - good game systems - while the AI is very bad at tactics, charging a shield wall with two hundred of your men following you is brilliant The bad: - the basic game ("native") is a bit bland - some game systems could use some additional features (such as your wife or improving your holdings) - responsiveness of the game world is not good. (you defeat a lord army, he is back with the same numbers within a week) - graphics are mediocre, even for an old game To be honest I don't really play the basic game, and mods do offer solution for problems. Recommendations: Gekokujo (the original), The Last Days, Deeds of arms and chivalry, Chronicles of Might and Magic
Being the fan of Fallout 1-2 and New Vegas, it is not easy to write about Fallout 3, but I will try anyway. Pros - nice soundtrack - the first good looking 3D wasteland - usually multiple solutions for quests - quite stable, no crashes at all, even with mods Cons - writing is from bad to average only - follow up from the previous titles is lousy (Brotherhood-Enclave-Mutants) - the main plot is too generic - the adventure sites lack internal logic. (things like the rich in the middle of nowhere, village with only children, folks living 10m distance from super mutant camps, etc.) Even though I consider New Vegas superior in every possible way, this game is a nice wasteland shooter, which definietly is worthy of a playthrough.
Came out during the great drought, together with Witcher 1. The game was sold as a spiritual successor of the Baldur's Gate franchise. These are down to personal preferences. Mostly love it or hate it. - aesthetics. The game has "fantasy" armor and weapon design, up to the point of disfunctionality. - formulaic combat, with strict DPS-Tank-Support classes - encounters scale to level - swift regen after combat. You start each fight with all abilities re-charged. PRO - some of the NPCs are entertaining - party interaction is nice, and sometimes funny - character building and team synergies are nice - combat in general is quite dangerous and tactical in theory. It is undermined with the very few (3-4?) enemy types and the swift regeneration after the battle - music is nice - the engine is solid. Easily load 10+ mods without problem. CON - maps are small, claustrophobic. Even the forests feel like dungeons with corridors. A surprising step back from even Baldur's Gate 1. - apart from a few NPCs (Loghain, Morrigan) most are Buffy-style high school clichés. Jock, artsy chick, goth, teacher who tells you what to do. - some quests don't make sense and/or your choices don't matter (eg. mage origin story) - some really grindy areas, full of trash mob fights - world is a bit too generic (excluding dwarfs) I feel that this game suffers from bloat. The actual size is larger than the quality content. Sadly fedex quests and trash mob fights were used as padding. While in my opinion the game fails at being a worthy successor of BG1-BG2-PST, it is not bad. Worth a try when you are bored with the classics, you might like it.
And again, a game I missed originally, but found time to play during Covid lockdowns. Pros: - good quality, smart and stylish dialog - ambient surroundings - very... coherent? The developers knew what they wanted, and everything supports their idea. Voice acting, color palettes, game systems, etc. - compact city blocks, minimal travelling and backtracking - actually unsettling and scary at places - voice acting is one of the best ever - clever use of animation: they are outdated, but they convey the personality of the NPC exceptionally well - modern day, not fantasy, sci-fi or post-apoc. This makes it really stand out. (maybe Alpha Protocoll is the other, and that's it?) Cons: - the grand finale was rushed. It is combat only, while the game as a whole usually offers sneaky or peaceful options. Even as a pacifist, start to build up your attack and defenses from about Hollywood. - there are some links which I think only possible to reveal with a walkthrough - choices and consequences are mostly cosmetic. (But! I have to admit that a main theme of the game and the V:tM in general is that characters don't really have agency, decisions are made by elders, PCs don't have the info necessary to make thought out choices, etc.) - Nosferatu playthrough is underwhelming. In theory everyone shoud freak out because of your looks, but - for plot reasons - all quest givers ignore that you look like a monster from a slasher movie. To be fair I have to admit that Malkavian dialogs are different than the rest, and lots of work went into them. This is not an open world game, as it deals with simulating the world with a different solution. Open world elements are ignored, but the important bits are fleshed out exceptionally well, which results in a laser focused experience. And to be honest this proved to be a much more enjoyable experience than what I anticipated. This game is still really unique, and every rpg enthusiast should try it out.
Originally I missed this game. Since it was available cheap, I decided to try it, and inmediately played through twice. Pros: - immersive gameplay with gritty atmosphere - well-written, CDPR has very good writers - important characters are not clichés. You sympathize with enemies, and sometimes loath your allies. Often you cannot decide which is which. This part is great. - no handholding and immersion breaking quest markers on the map - nice surprises - choices and consequences (even though the follow up in Witcher 3 is lousy) - nice weapon and armor progression - looks! Armor designs are better then W3! Cons: - strange difficulty curve. Or rather brick wall. The beginning in Flotsam is super harsh. The game then gets progressively easier, up to the point of seemingly playing with a god mode with cheat in the end. - some annoying QTEs. (you can turn them off in the menu) - the game has a bad habit of a cutscene leading you into a fight scene with no save - this ties into potions. You have to drink them before the cutscene, but you have to know that the cutscene will lead you into a fight. This won't happen on your first playthrough. - crafting component weight is not really thought out - I am not bad in rpg puzzles, but I had to use gamebanshee's walkthrough on a few occasions Tips: - a mod from nexus, called "weight watchers". This makes every crafting component 0 kg - there is a "navigate to wraith infested battlefield" section in mid game. You get a talisman to guide you through it, but the game doesn't tell you to _use it with pressing the Y key_ - gamebanshee's walkthrough is nice if you cannot figure out a puzzle Overall I think this game holds up well. The only really annoying thing is the inventory weights, but you can nullify it with a small mod. Controls are not the best, and graphics are 2010, but if you can get over these, the experience is worth it. Definietly in my personal TOP10 of post-2000 rpgs.
The game seemed a mix of Banner Saga gameplay with the Gwent mechanic from Witcher 3, which seemed a good combinatin to me, as I like both. Unfortunately the game turned out less fun than expected, but still not bad. Pro: - pretty graphics, with a Banner Saga-Disney wibe - quality voice acting - well written characters, CDPR has the best writers in the industry - choices&consequences events - some puzzles are nice to teach card combos Con: - regular Gwent duels are too easy, because the best cards are easily available - story holds no surprises - while the characters are well-written and have great voice acting, most of them are clichés. Stock characters like hippie with a dark past or loveable rogue. - I felt that the puzzles are overdone, your deck not usable in a sizeable portion of the game. (40-50%? not sure) - map navigation and resource collection involves lot’s of backtracking, and is basically a waste of time. The maps are pretty though. Areas of improvement: - 2D map, with linear progression. This would cut the backtracking on the campaign map - save a deck option. Currently, if the player faces a gimmick challenge, the only solution is: loading an earlier save + build a deck around the gimmick + win the duel + rebuild your original deck. - it would be nice to _not_ build the cards at camp, but pick one of three after a battle. This would force the players to adapt their deck to the cards at hand, not just build their winning combo. This would also solve the competitiveness of the AI, as you might end up with only one alchemist or no forager. This is similar to Witcher 3 or Slay the Spire, where you get a random card from your matches, and there are no guaranteed cards. Overall: A good game, but not great. I feel that the Witcher 3 Gwent game is more interesting than this, as long as you don’t play Northern Realms or Empire. I don’t regret buying it, but I am glad I bought at a discount.
