• Hello,Welcome to Play.com.  . (Not youSign in?) | Register
  • 0 SuperPoints
  • Your Account
  • Help

Product Reviews

Reviewer:
happygnome
Reviews:
0
Votes:
48 (52% helpful)

Page 1 of 0

  1.  Based on demo * Updated *

    Posted: 

    (EDIT: Apparently my demo review caused some offence so now owning the game I feel shamed into updating my previous contribution. Huh, it's still plays and feels the same as what I played in the demo and I reckon my original review is still valid. I just want to add that the story is pretty cool but no spoilers here.)

    Whilst the demo is only a small part of the game it is representative of the finished product; or it wouldn't be a good demo.

    The demo shows a complete change from origins (not sure if Woolsey was playing the same demo I was), with a complete overhaul of the combat system, graphics and dialogue system.

    The mage is more is more or less unchanged but the two other classes are much more playable - it now focusses a bit more on the hack and slash style, rather than the slow more tactical origins style.

    Dialogue system is that of Mass effect, which could perhaps limit conversation variation but I personally love it.

    My main concern (emphasis on my) is that whilst the graphics are improved, the character models have changed and not to my liking.

    So yeah I was happy with the demo and my advice is to go and download the demo because a LOT has changed and though I like the changes, they aren't going to be everyone's cup of tea.

    N.B. The developers have made the normal difficulty in this game, the same as casual was on origins and advise more experienced players to start playing on hard difficulty.

  2.  Beware of bias.

    Posted: 

    Black ops.
    Is it good? Yeah I reckon so.
    Is it the best game? No.
    Is it a bad game? Of course not.

    If you liked MW and WaW then you will probably enjoy it because the online is more BALANCED (than MW 2) and the new zombies is awesome.

    What I don't understand is all the people who are against this game. Personally I found MW 2 unbalanced, overly competitive and lacking both party chat and a coherent single player.

    If you prefer MW 2 that's fine but why rate black ops down for stupid reasons like 'bad graphics' or 'stupid CoD point system'. So its not the best game but was MW 2, no of course not.

    Maybe its not worth 40+ pounds and maybe it isn't as good as its preprocessors but I feel all the negative reviews are rather unfair, especially when a lot of the effort went into making the online more balanced.

  3.  I did want to hate it, but I couldn't.

    Posted: 

    After the disaster of MW 2 I had low expectations of this game, and in fact didn't buy it (played it at friends).
    I'l start with the positives:
    - Awesome Easter egg called 'dead ops arcade'
    - Extended zombie mode with one continued map and one bonus map (two maps basically)
    - more balanced online
    - combat training
    - split screen online
    - really nice graphics
    - nice guns
    - cool new online modes
    - decent maps
    - new online currency system.

    Onto the negatives:
    - slightly pricey, just wait for the map packs
    - campaign's a bit meh
    - a couple of minor glitches

    Yeah so from looking at it, one would think a lot has changed. So why do people moan that its the same as the others, when we all know that if treyarch did step too far from the beaten path, the SAME people would complain.

    And for the people who say its not as good as MW 2, that's fine but don't keep going on and on and on about it.

  4.  Yeah maybe it is the same old car with a new paint job ...

    Posted: 

    but with a heck of a better paint job and go faster strips added on the side.

    It is very similar to similar to the previous fallout, in fact very similar and is a bad thing no. I'll say it again, no. I loved fallout 3 and love this game as well.

    However whilst I am impressed with the game, I would've liked maybe a few more improvements such as less glitches (already experienced some), better combat and a tweaked interface, rather than lifting the pip boy from fallout 3. And as such I understand people rating it down because of such things.

    - What they have done though is a nice addition and the improved story is a very welcomed one.

  5.  Its called fallout new Vegas and not fallout 4, for a reason

    Posted: 

    I loved fallout 3 when it came out, never was a big fan of oblivion but spent ages wandering the wasteland. Two years later and then fallout new Vegas comes along. I put it my console, start it up and what would you know its just like fallout 3, glitches and all.

    However is this a bad thing, NO of course not, we all knew it would be very similar but we still bought it.
    So its not the perfect sequel and yeah maybe a bit glitchy but for a game as amazing and big as fallout who cares. Because what obsidian have done is take fallout 3, improve the quest writing and create a whole new wasteland to mess around in. (and more)

  6.  Average.

    Posted: 

    I don't quite understand the raving reviews here. My experience is bland and rather disappointing. With the hype around it and my friend loving it, he invited me around to try it at his house. I didn't find it boring and going on online split screen was very cool, but it felt empty. It just felt unintuitive and clunky.

    For other games I would maybe give a fourth star but with this game I just was disappointed, it feels like and well, is halo 3. This wouldn't be a bad thing if halo 3 was amazing but that game too was rather average.

    In short this game is by no means bad, on the contrary it is quite fun especially with friends, but the game is average (like MW) and currently overpriced.

    Watch out for other reviews though as fanboism is rampant in the realm of halo, my friend a new member of their ranks.

  7.  Don't be put off because its hard

    Posted: 

    Although this game is hard, its not really hard. I've died much more on call of duty than on demon soul's, so why is demon's soul's hard?

    Well because of the lack of checkpoints, no pause button and other players being able to join your game and kill you. (and more)

    But despite these things each death isn't an inconvenience but rather a learning experience and whilst it starts off hard it gets easier - not much.

    In short you will die and a lot but makes beating a level feel like an accomplishment that no other game can offer.

  8.  Battlefield: Bad company 2

    Posted: 

    The story is mediocre but the online is really good and it is less hateful than MW 2 as in that game the verbal abuse and competitiveness is crazy (considering its a game) where as in BC 2
    its stressful and is much more how a game should be, FUN.

    The strength of BC 2 lies in it's game engine that allows destructive environments as this allows the set pieces of the map to alter, changing the flow of the map every play.

  9.  Yeah

    Posted: 

    Its nice to see a stealth game where you can go can literally go through it without killing anyone unlike other stealth games where they require you to kill everyone anyway, splinter cell I'm looking at you .

    I would have liked some more game play though and whilst I enjoyed the cut scenes, most of the game seemed to be made up of them with the actual game play fitting into under 3 hours, a very good threw hours but a bit short.

    That said it has robust online, lots of unlockables and a good price, I would recommend reading up on the story if you haven't played the other MGSs.

  10.  Just a bit of fun

    Posted: 

    I know that a lot of complaints are that its too childish or too simple but this is the whole charm of the game. The reason for no map customisation, no in depth diplomacy, and so on is to keep the game flowing. Classic civilization certainly does belong on the PC but this adaptation is simply just great fun putting an emphasis on the combat in order to keep the game moving.