The Furious Charles Darwin legutóbbi értékelései

Giving this a recommendation because I enjoy the 1v1 and 3vE I mainly came for and I believe in the overall project. That said, I would tell most people to wait till Aug 13, play the free content available (which there is a solid amount of IMO), and buy the parts you are interested in piecemeal.

1v1 feels good. The factions have evolved a fair bit since the open beta, and each one feels incredibly distinct from each other. The matches have a nice flow to them, and with the exception of spellcasters, I like how the units are defined more by their positioning, attack and movement patters and passive abilities. Deathballing is fine, but suboptimal, and whatever micro you feel like you can put in has nice payoffs. It feels a lot less volatile and more textured than a lot of the fights in SC2, where sheer density of damage and taking a good initial engagement were most of the determining factors once armies got big. I also like how FG played with some more outlandish ideas that feel like they should be imbalanced, but somehow feel fine here. Finally, the mode is completely F2P. Other than some cosmetic stuff, you get everything needed for 1v1 at no cost, and there is nothing you can pay for that will give you an advantage.

3vE Co-op has improved quite a bit since the open beta. There are more missions and their designs are a substantial step up. All heroes are available for free to be leveled up to 5, paying $10 for one of them uncaps their level to 10, and then there are further levels to augment them (this cap will be raised later according to the devs). From SC2, I found co-op had enough replay-ability to make it easily feel worth it to buy the characters you like and get your moneys worth several times over. I don't see why SG will feel different, but it is also early. I am currently testing Warz, who I have not bought, so I will see how it feels to play him capped at level 5.

That said, I get why some people feel burned by buying a large pack, especially if their interest is in the campaign. The campaign missions are fine, but not polished or interesting enough to be worth buying piece meal at the moment. The presentation in cutscenes looks awful for the price. I've only played part of the First 3 missions (which are available to everyone for free), and if I did not have a bundle from the kickstarter, I would not pay for the followup chapters until I saw significant improvements. The fact that the bundle sizes basically means some people payed 20, 40, or even 60 bucks to get access to a slice of a WIP campaign. Yeah, it's going to suck. am aware that this is a work in progress and the game is being iterated on. Right now, the reaction is saying that this iteration did not feel worth the cost for a lot of people.

Finally, there are highs and lows to the game's performance. It is definitely not optimized right now, and the performance has fluctuated between the different builds. This is to be expected for EA, but I've found this build has a tenancy to "sieze up" once per map, causing units to be unresponsive for a few seconds before returning to normal. This has been a lot more frequent in Co-op. The art style isn't everyone's thing, frankly I like the unit designs in a vacuum. The visual details and lighting have been improved SIGNIFICANTLY since the open beta, which does help everything mesh together more and feel less cheap. Seeing the improvement in this area alleviates a lot of my worries about how the game will look come 1.0. Finally, the snowplay engine feels very crisp to control. Units feels extremely responsive when it works. There are still times where the pathing derps out, but this is also an area the devs have said they expect to be refining for as long as it needs polish.

IMO, this game's biggest failure, despite good intentions, was that it was launched with this kind of bundled pricing. It meant a lot of people payed full price without knowing the game was a WIP, when there was no reason they shouldn't have waited for Aug 13, and sampled the freely available content before deciding what parts they want to buy. The model of "free to play the core game, buy the bits of content that you enjoy, and see everything in the game improve overtime" is a solid model with good potential in my opinion, but the early access bundles made people feel like they payed full price for a 6 mission beta build with other features that they may not care about.

TL;DR - Fun 1v1 and Co-Op, campaign needs a lot of work to feel worth the money. Wait for Aug 13, play a bit of everything for free, and then see if you want to buy anything.

I bought this game in 2008, and have seen how it has evolved overtime. I really can't overstate how impactfull Team Fortress 2 has been to gaming. It's aesthetic was unlike anything people saw at the time, being described in 2007 as "playing a Pixar film". It's emphasis on expressive, unique characters as opposed to a basic avatar within a competitive multiplayer game felt so fresh, and made the game as memorable as it is. The design decisions, as explained in the commentary, explain how the Valve managed to create such compelling gameplay, even with such a limited number of maps (at the time). Even stuff that was added retroactively, such as 99% of the lore, was stellar, and elevated the experience. This game inspired its community at launch, and continued to for almost 2 decades. I don't like to compare other games to TF2 because it's success is honestly unprecedented in this relatively young medium. TF2 is a cultural monument to the gaming landscape

Sadly, this monument has been vandalized by bot hosters. This wouldn't be a problem if TF2 wasn't an actively monetized game owned by one of the most profitable companies in the industry, but here we are. TF2 would be my comfort game, but every server I enter turns into a flood of aimbots, endlessly sussing out votes to know if I'm kicking a bot or a player, and begging other players to call a vote because I've already used mine. Basic features like chating have been barred from legit F2Pers because bots used it to spew hate speech. Matches can go from pleasant to painful within a minute as bots rapidly join, are booted from, and then repopulate the server while all other players leave in frustration. The community servers that could be a refuge have been burried overtime thanks to Valve's own matchmaker, only for Valve's servers to become infested with these bots.

This game in in an unplayable state, and Valve has done nothing to resolve it. As someone who loves this hobby and loves what this game has done for it, Valve's lack of respect towards their own product, that STILL MAKES THEM MONEY, revolts me.

While the game pitches itself as a "Speedrunning FPS", I feel like it is better described as a "Speedrunning first-person puzzle platformer". While gunplay is a core part of the gameplay, enemies serve more as environmental tools to interact with as opposed to foes which will try to stop you.

As a result, if you want a speedy, twitchy action shooter akin to Quake, you will not find it here.

Instead, what you will find is a game that is all about creating a nice, organic flow through smooth controls, fun discard powers, and levels that, while they may feel telegraphed early on, means that the game is very easy to just chill out with. Individual levels are easy to complete, but scoring a gold or elite time (and further below that) will require you to polish each run to become as efficient as possible, and this is where the real meat of the game is. While the levels may have pretty telegraphed intended route, finding alternate paths, big skips, or even just moving a tiny bit quicker become incredibly compelling to those who have ever enjoyed chasing a high score. There is something very cool about shaving 0.3 seconds on your previous time, and watching you global rank climb by a few thousand places.

Some other points: The story is incredibly silly, and the script is all over the place, yet it is weirdly compelling. Props to the main voice cast who, given the wonky plot and writing, manage to give it some solid energy to give the script some life.

Giving this a recommendation with the caveat that this game may be polarizing. For a quick descriptor: it is essentially a mini Souls-like that is trying to emulate the sense of discovery from old school adventure games (both for better and for worse).

The usual Dark Souls structure is there: picking up your currency where you died last, melee combat with an emphasis on patience (mind you, it is much less difficult than most souls-likes), environments that loop between each other to create an elaborate world map, etc. This is all presented through a cute, minimalist art style with an isometric camera and an atmosphere that emphasizes tranquility and isolation, and the controls are all simple and streamlined. It's a strong loop that is extremely playable.

But here's the warning: This game takes a lot of pride in how little it tells you, occasionally to a fault. Throughout the game, you collect pages of "the manual" (it is literally designed to look like an instruction booklet from a GBA game), and even that is primarily written in a cipher that is not intended to be readable. In fact, every time you pick up an item (including consumables), it's name and description are written in that same code. This encourages experimentation, but it also means the early portion of the game can feel extremely opaque. On top of that, remember the isometric fixed camera? Well, the game has a lot of its exploration hiding around blind corners and through hidden passages that don't do much too hint at their presence. Finding hidden secrets around corners felt less like "Ah ha!" moments of discovery, and more disheartening as I felt like the game had trained me to just rub against every surface and cliff side I could see.

The game is a masterclass in subtle tutorial design, as the early portions of the game do an impressive job at guiding you to figure out the fundamentals on your own before handing you the instructions. However, it means that the game is built to force you to just "try things", and does not care to give the player context to know how much wiggle room they have. It took about 3 hours before I felt like the game clicked, and I could comfortably appreciate the game's rules. The sense of discovery and experimentation is a wonderful throwback to old school games, but can feel incredibly jarring for a modern release, even for someone like me who's been gaming for about 25 years.

TL;DR - Mini Dark Souls that tries to emulate the vagueness of old school games to encourage experimentation and exploration. It's well designed enough to help you figure it out, but the learning process can feel overly unclear at times. A well crafted adventure that may be a bit too proud of it's willingness to spit in the face of modern conventions.

Well, I may have just found a new obsession. In short, this game has one of the most tactical turn based battle systems I remember playing in recent memory, rewarding careful planning and good understanding of a huge toolkit of skills instead of just attacking hard and fast every round. If that sounds intriguing, pick it up. The game is not perfect, but the flaws don't hurt the main experience too much. Here is a full breakdown:

Pros:
- As I said, the battle system is fantastic. I won't explain how it works (check online for that), but I will say the battles and overall gameplay are quite similar to Darkest Dungeon.
- The different classes open up a wealth of strategic options, and each one feels incredibly distinct with what kind of niche they can excel in.
- Similar to Darkest Dungeon, this game puts up a meaty challenge. However, I found Darkest Dungeon felt like its difficulty came from steadily grinding the party down in a slow war of attrition, where as Star Renegades's difficulty comes from understanding the nuances of its complex battle system, and rewards you appropriately for doing so. The challenge to reward ratio feels very good.
- Animation and sound design are exquisite, and are a big part of why the battles are so fun. Even outside of fights, the sound, art and effects contribute a great deal to the experience.
- The characters all have nice designs and distinct personalities (if only they were written better).

Cons:
- The writing isn't bad, but it feels like almost every line of dialogue is trying to be funny or quirky. You know how the Marvel movies will have characters regularly spewing quipy one-liners? This feels like that with no other dialogue to support it. Some succeed, some don't, but it's such a constant stream of jokes on an otherwise serious backdrop that it gives the game a very flimsy tone. Luckily, the story isn't intrusive, so it can be ignored easily. It's a shame though, because the character concepts themselves are quite good.
- There is definitely repetition in the level design. You won't encounter much more than non-random encounters, finding loot, or the occasional random event or side dungeon. I understand that the combat is the core of the gameplay, and the semi-open world map is limited from a gameplay perspective, but I don't see why this game couldn't have added FTL-style dialogue windows to describe non-combat encounters. It would have helped mix up exploration more and given another avenue for world building.

Overall, this game leans extremely heavily on its gameplay and its presentation, both of which are strong enough to make a compelling, satisfying experience.

Can be played in 10 minutes, and is a very nice demonstration of mechanics as metaphor. If you like the idea of games being explored as an artistic and expressive medium, check it out. It's not gaming's masterpiece, but it's a cool little demonstration of what can be done.

I'm going to play it again just to see what my thoughts are the second time through. Show it to a friend, have a conversation about it, and leave it at that.

It's a cleaver little piece for what it is.