I really, really wanted to like this game. I read reviews, watched videos, informed myself before purchasing. And then I tried it. It was a bit clunky, as some people have described it at first. But then the clunkiness got in the way of my ability to complete early tasks (like getting away from town in the first chapter, or stealing ammo from crazy whatsisname in the next task). The tasks were difficult, yes, but the clunky controls and subpar collision detection made it a crapshoot as to whether I could jump out of crazy whatsisname's window in time before he shot and killed me. I like hard games. But I like them when they're hard because they were made that way, not so much when they become hard because they're poorly made. One day, maybe I'll revisit this, but I doubt it.
The character generation, skill trees, and variety of character types present in this game rivals virtually any other RPG game I've played. I was rather excited to jump into the world after spending thirty minutes creating a character. As an aside, it was my choice to spend those thirty minute; you could, if you wish, have a character in a few seconds, since almost everything (even name) can be randomized. I was excited to play a combination of character types that I'd never really considered before (an odd mix off strength and stealth). I spent the first twenty minutes or so of the game reading tips and orienting myself to the world. Once I did that, I embarked on some quests. Almost immediately I mysteriously lost my weapon (I wasn't even in combat) and the person I was supposed to rescue died before I was even certain he/she was my objective. I tried a few other missions, with varying results. I fought a few battles, and some were even mildly challenging. Ultimately, Zombasite got really tedious really quickly. In CRPG's that I've enjoyed, almost from the start I felt like all the clicking and button mashing had a purpose. I was finding items, leveling up, and accomplishing objectives. In Zombasite, the repetition of combat didn't feel purposeful. I felt like I was clicking for no real reason. The graphics didn't help this either. They remind me of older, outdated CRPG's. If you want something you can pick up every once and a while to engage in some random combat, or if you're the kind of person who loves to explore a complex character advancement system, this game is for you. If you are (like I am) the kind of gamer who wants his actions to feel like they're driving toward something larger, or if you play games for story lines and characterization, skip it. Go back and play a Diablo game or one of the Torchlights.
How does this game average four stars? I'm not completely against it. I was lucky enough to get to beta test it (once they finally got it up and running). It's not horrible, but I can't see a justification for more than three stars. Game play is simple enough once you get used to the interface and moving around the board. The graphics are good enough for the ambition level of the game. It seems to have enough variety to keep a player interested for quite a while, and it's nice to have a relatively straightforward online multiplayer game that doesn't require insane reflexes and loads of adrenaline (it's a nice shift of gears). Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good FPS online experience, but this is much more relaxing and thought-based. My primary issue with this game is one of format. I am a huge fan of board games; going over to someone's house for hours on end to play a dice-and-cardboard game while indulging a bit too much in less-than-healthy foods and drinks...you're talking my language. It's a great bonding experience, it can be a really fun way to blow off some steam and enjoy time off with friends, and it can also be a good way to make a few new friends: sitting across the table from each other, waiting for the next player to screw you over with a die roll or a well-played card. It's that human element that WAG misses. Instead of looking my opponent intently in the eye, I'm stuck in a room by myself, playing a game that would be much more enjoyable in a paper and plastic format. The side conversation is missing, the human bonding is absent. The mechanics and graphics are great, but if I'm going to roll dice, I want to feel them in my hands. Also, my personal preference is for a game in which the players can actively affect each other's actions. You can make it a little more difficult for your opponent to move from one area to another, but that's just not much. On the interaction scale: just not enough.
I rarely trash a game, but this one comes really close to being an exception. Many people have said this is a video game made by artists as opposed to game designers, but I must disagree. The people who made this game are neither artists nor game designers. Gameplay-wise, there's nothing particularly good or bad going on here. The graphics are fine for the genre. The interface works. The in-game mini-puzzles are good enough. The control scheme and interface are perfectly appropriate for what the game is trying to be. That's why I gave it two stars instead of one. The main problem is the game lacks interactivity, in that it's not about solving a mystery or becoming engaged in the world as PART OF the story. It is about bearing witness. And certainly bearing witness to a life is a worthy task, but this game fails to provide enough human interest to hook me and keep me hooked. I played for an hour or two, and all I discovered was trite, overdone, melodramatic writing. In all fairness, I might have quit playing the moment before it would have hooked me, and if so, that's the big failure on the part of the developer: creating an engaging and meaningful game that simply takes too long to warm up. First impressions are critical, and To the Moon failed to make one on me.
