When I first grabbed the original Ground Control off of FilePlanet for free (which was holding promotions for their sequel) I was a little biased. I had StarCraft, and that was enough RTS fun for me until I could get a copy of Dawn of War or something a little more advanced. Against all odds, this has been only the second RTS game to ever captivate me beyond the tutorial, and the first RTS I attempted to beat. The first awesome thing about Ground Control, even to this day, is the graphics. You can tell me it's a seven year old game, you can tell me that it looks a little humble in places...more often than not, this game has impressed me with well made details and worlds without blogging my cruddy computer down. The fully rotatable camera works wonders at letting you see your units up and personal in their battles...or high up to get a Supreme Commander like view. And technologically the game looks nice; there are some absolutely stunning art design stuff done here to give the game a loud, powerful feel, even at its age. Grenades and artillery shells still look awesome when they come down and slam their opponents to smithereens, and you can put your camera right in the front seat. I was able to turn on most of the features with my machine "of the future," like shadows on absolutely everything, treadmarks from nearly every vehicle, sun-slot flashes, along with some other snazzy little touches here or there. But that's the great part: you can just turn everything off and get a nice, smooth experience with the game, no matter what your computer specs are. So while it's older but still nice looking, it never gets in the way of what makes it really good: the gameplay. Think Advance Wars on the Game Boy Advance. Now take away unit creation, and make the game super deep and a lot more complex in the way the units behave. Not make the whole thing Real Time and you have Ground Control. Granted, it does not have any resource management, but that's the best part: all you have to do is worry about your units, right there and then. You guide your units to do whatever they need to do at that moment on the battlefield, be it kill or capture. Except that it's not your units, it's your squads. You don't just grab one dude, you grab his whole extended family: Ground Control treats, like Advance Wars, units as part of a squad, who do everything together. This is nowhere as bad as it sounds, and the only issue is getting over the "I want to micro manage" instinct that most longtime RTS players will have. Relative newbies to the genre will feel right at ease, and it will actually make the process of learning much easier, with the campaign and tutorial. The game has a very well done tutorial, as a matter of fact, and it pays off. After you learn to control and wield all of your machinery, you are thrust within a 30-mission campaign, which is fairly well done and weighted for your experience. The first few missions will give you a sense of security as the game ramps up, giving you more puzzles to think when you control your squads with extra power. This also ignores the GOG.com-included expansion pack, which has been unavailable for years until now. What else will you not find up to standards? Other professional reviews have mentioned pathfinding as an issue, and I disagree. Again, I'm jaded from StarCraft, but as a light RTS gamer I see no issue with how the units move...they all got to their designated spot within good time. The enemy AI is also fairly decent, though a bit of a pushover on the easiest level compared to other games. The only issue I had personally (with the original game, mind you, not GOG.com's) was with the audio, other than the music is too low to hear it at first. Crank it up and you will hear an impressive array of army-goes-to-battle tunes, which suit the game enormously well. The voice-overs are well done for the most part, though some of the accents are obviously fake and get in the way. Nothing terrible, though; this isn't Deus Ex or anything. And if the game isn't enough that it's good and pretty, it's also long. With LAN-perfect multiplayer, a 30-map campaign, and a few downloadable skirmish maps, you can play this big boy for a long time, with the map editor as well (not included). It's perhaps standard to have limitless amounts of gameplay in a RTS now, but GC pulled it off. Ground Control pulled a lot of stuff off, but you've heard me rant enough. If you're deliberating whether to throw yet another debt on the wallet, jump on it and grab this game. You will NOT be sorry.
When playing this game, I was free to play it in any manner that I wished, and I made my own game from that. When games these days are so entrenched in giving the player "that much more freedom!" when most of the time it really just stems from choosing the red or blue text icon, it really becomes that much more vivid when a game – from 1997, no less – comes along and shows you a world that you are free to do whatever you wish with, as long as you have the creativity and the means to do it. Not that I'm saying that Fallout is anywhere near the concept and breadth of, say, Spore. It's an old game to be sure; if the same game were to be made today, it would be able to incorporate a lot more of what made the original that much more compelling. The technology limits it, of course, but in the same breath I can say that Fallout still transcends the very technology that makes it, creating a strategic role playing game that really is in a class of its own. It certainly isn't the easiest game to understand, but after knowing its purpose and reasoning, it becomes a brilliant work of an age that left us a long, long time ago. I will admit; my first feelings toward Fallout were, at best, muted. The game is slow, plodding, and wordy, filled with customizations that felt mostly without use or interest. Battles are thorough, and each turn takes a level of strategy and cleverness that a modern game wouldn't dare ask of the average gamer today. Every step has a consequence, an extra option to press through, it seemed, and it felt like a chore to play for too long for me to keep it installed on my computer. And yet, the charm of a post-apocalyptic RPG was too great for me to turn it down for long; Ron Perlman's voice coming through my speakers talking about the nuclear war was simply too cool for me to ignore. Eventually, there was enlightenment, a day where the angels came down to my ear, and whispered softly into my brain, "This is what Fallout means," and I understood. It's not a game that can be played at surface value. The aesthetics are ugly, the interface is boring and the sound is muffled and dull. And yet, it takes time and patience to understand the true nuances of what makes this game bring back fans, year after year. Fallout is a combination of many things, it seems. It isn't just the manufactured RPG's that erupt from Japanese development houses; it is a true, Dungeons and Dragons role playing game. It is a world where you create your own identity; whether it's your own or an identity that you created, it's about fitting into that and seeing what happens. It's less about killing the demon on level five and more about the way you phrase your words so that the shopkeeper knows exactly who you are. And, hey, if you need to blow off some steam, just kill the whole town. But beyond the meta-game of creating your own persona, it's also about strategic combat. Fallout's battle system is comparable less to Diablo and more to a HeroClix miniatures battle or a Fire Emblem campaign. The main difference between Fallout and Fire Emblem is that the latter gives you many units that do very little, while Fallout gives you one guy whom you have extreme and total power over for the entire game. Hit the enemy on the shoulder with a knife, then hit the rat behind him with a rifle. Boom, pow, reload. Next turn. Plan it out, figure out what the enemy will do. React, adjust. There's more thought required here in five minutes than there is in an entire Final Fantasy game. It's also an adventure. In no way does it rival newer games like Grand Theft Auto in sheer detail, but every step you take feels like a legitimate cause to play more and explore more. While the game may be made up of very similar textures and tiles, none of it feels similar. The game gives you a task, and you can fulfill it if you want to, but if your character doesn't care about the main story, then so be it. Ignore the cutscenes and time limit, though there is a reaction to any decision you make. This is why Fallout is not for everyone. It takes a mindset to play successfully; this game is not looking for the mass market audience. It was always designed for the hardcore PC gamer, and it's still meant for the hardcore PC gamer. For the new users, play the demo; know what you're in for. If you like what you hear above, by all means, play Fallout. Love it, cherish it. There's nothing else like it, and there never will be. But if you go into it asking for something that it's not, you will be disappointed. Its brute force approach to giving the gamers what they want is a little strong for a lot of people, and there are many who have not been enlightened to what Fallout really is. It's not just an RPG. It's a combination of many things, an it's a mindset. It's a conversation. It asks the player, "What would you like to do with me today?" and the player must offer an answer. Without one, the vault will remain forever closed. (This review was previously posted by my alter-ego, Aberinkulas, on Gamespot.)
