James Kirk @Zorgon

Master of Orion 3 (Windows)

Like a great monument. They put so much on it they caused it to fall apart.

The Good
The game certainly seems to offer fresh new ideas, and for the most part it does. A new economic system, more ship sizes, more slots for your designed ships, etc. The game is extremely complex, with a slew of governments, settings for security, espionage, funding etc. etc. Taken alone, each of these features seems to make the game much better.

I must also say that the story is top-notch.

The ground combat has been expanded upon (although some may say complicated) to the betterment of the game in my opinion. There are multiple ground unit types (Infantry, marines, mobile armor, psy-ops etc,) with defender and attacker strategies you can use depending on the situation. Overall the ground combat is more satisfying.

The Bad
Unfortunately, the game is enormously complex and plays extremely slowly. Everything has had multiple layers of complexity added to it, so much so that the game is almost unplayable unless you are either a.) A member of MENSA or b.) Have read the 150 page instruction manual.

After one of those two has been accomplished, you are now actually able to understand the basic workings of the game. Now it is time for you to begin your simulation. Simulation of what you ask? Why, a simulation of a high level bureaucrat!

For you see, the game has radically changed its focus. Away from combat and simple management, towards an advanced simulation of resource allocation and infrastructure designation.

No longer is the game at least fairly intuitive, now, it is like wandering through a deep, thick fog, almost impossible to understand without some type of aid.

A perfect example is the technologies. Before, you had a fairly good idea what you were researching. Advanced laser, ion drive, it was all clear. If you still didn't get it, a clear and concise report on what in-game the tech did would be provided for you. No longer.

Now, the descriptions of the techs are almost always terrible. They provide poor descriptions and most of the time they use words that vaguely sound "futuristic" that you will have no idea what they mean, or what they do. Choosing your techs is almost impossible for all intents and purposes without massive amounts of research and knowledge.

Space combat is also another lack-luster feature. Now, I am a fan of the previous Master of orion games, and I thought the turn-based combat was fine, but, unlike some others, when I heard the combat was going to be real time, I had an open mind about it.

Now I see it was a mistake. The space combat is a step backwards, big time. I intently followed the pre-release of MOO3 (in fact, anticipation for the game inspired me to buy the two prequels) and gobbled up any pre-release info I could find about it. The impression I got was that combat would be a real time strategic affair, a grand array of forces with a multitude of tactics and abilities. The Rome: Total War of tactical space combat if you will.

Instead, I find crappy graphics. Seriously, these graphics suck. Instead of well rendered 3d models with realistic damage and a multitude of control and strategies, I find what is perhaps the most bare-bones space combat ever conceived. You have your ships, move, attack, and that's it. For a game that came out so many years after MOO2, you'd think the space graphics would be good. Instead, MOO2 has vastly superior space graphics.

That wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact the ships are poorly rendered. So poorly rendered in fact you will have difficulty telling what they are, or knowing without a bit of study what type of ship is what. Not that it matters. The game has no space battle strategy at all. Short of ordering your ships not to attack the enemy you cannot effect your chances of winning. The forces you have sent there is 99 percent of your battle. There's nothing you can do to make the battle come out any better than just having the computer auto-resolve. It makes the space combat seem even more boring and ultimately pointless.

Worse yet, it makes the game more about technology and industrial production (oh joy!). There are no epic battles, no turning points, the battles are all decided before you begin.

The game is tedious in other ways also. Instead of allowing you to control how you group and move your ships as you like, it over complicates it by locking the ships into a :task force" system. Ditto for ground forces.

What does this mean? Quite simply it means this. When you build a ship, it doesn't appear at the planet you built it. Oh no, that's way too simple. Instead, it goes into your reserve pool. They then can be assembled at any system with a "staging area" into a task force.

This means that I can build ships on one side of the galaxy and then teleport them into a task force on the other side of the galaxy in a single turn. DId I mention that if you don't put your ships into task forces, they will just hang in limbo? You can't have them defend anywhere, they're just, gone.

And then you have the task forces themselves. Crap. Suppose you want. First of all, its just a pain not being able to move just one or two ships after you've combined them. They are stuck there until the Orions come home.

Second, you can't even combine them like you want. Suppose you want a task force of 50 carriers. Can't have it. You can only form them of certain sizes and they need "escorts" and "picket" ships, which means you ave to add other types of ships. You can't decide for yourself, they force you into it. The only other solution is the group them into tiny groups of 3 or 4 ships. Bad.

The diplomacy is also clunky and slow. The amount of deal options are sad (I can't figure out how to ask my ally to declare war on my enemy!) DIplomacy, rather than having a direct channel, instead its like E-Mail You offer something, two turns later he gets your message and sends a reply etc. It makes diplomacy long and drawn out. This wouldn't be so bad if diplomacy was anymore complex in here than in other similar games.

The AI is decent. After the patch, it has become aggressive and will actually attack you, but the "planet viceroy" (The ai that controls your planets) is still inadequate. They'll often make poor military ship choices and overall it keeps you busy changing their building que. Unless of course, you want dozens of out-dated useless ships in your "reserve".


The Bottom Line
Simply buy Master of Orion 2.

By James Kirk on January 14, 2006

Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds (Windows)

Tolerable...

The Good
Well, the idea of a Star Wars RTS is certainly cool. The controls are simple and serve their purpose. Nothing here stands out as amazingly good. The graphic animations are competent. The interface has an appropriate "Star Warsy" feel.

The Bad
The game is essentially a (if you will excuse the expression) clone of Age of Kings. Almost all of the techs are the same, with different names and icons. All the buildings have their AOK clones, most of the units are pretty standard etc.

The engine (which uses the AOK engine) is frankly, outdated and old, even at the time it was released. The game's graphics are ok, but nothing to look at. Sometimes the scale and overall look of the game creates a rather gaudy atmosphere, in contrast to the more laid-back, eye pleasing style of AOK.

The game's strategy element is poor compared to that of AOK. Air units are really the game breaker here. Air units being overpowered and difficult to destroy, it just adds another annoying level to the elegant strategy of AOK.

The sounds are also often overpowering, with blood curdling, melodramatic screams. It's extremely annoying not to mention somewhat tacky.

The campaigns that comes with the game are pathetic compared to the ones in AOK.

The Bottom Line
This game is a cheap Star Wars cash in on Age of Empire 2.

By James Kirk on August 31, 2005

Star Trek: 25th Anniversary (DOS)

One of the best adventure games ever!

The Good
GRAPHICS: The graphics in this game are excellent. Full VGA graphics, with good animations and texturing overall makes this game a delight to look at.

INTERFACE: The game also excels in this. The interface is an intuitive "point and click" interface common in adventure games. There's the traditional inventory etc. Nothing radical, but it works very well.

SOUND: The game really stands out in this respect. Everyone returning from the series has the voice of the original actors. They deliver their dialogue in an extremely good manner. It's just like the television show in every respect. The weapon sounds also are top-notch. Overall, the sounds are excellent and serve to immerse you into the Star Trek atmosphere.

STORY: The missions in the game are essentially episodes of Star Trek. Occasionally they tie in with each other, but not often. However, the stories are excellent. There are multiple ways of completing the missions and many different outcomes, allowing for alot of playability.

COMBAT: Combat between ships is very arcade-like. You control everything with the mouse, firing your phasers and photon torpedoes. You aim, tell Scotty to repair damage to various systems etc. Overall, although simple, the combat is very fun and engaging, making for a nice change to the mostly non-violent adventures.

The Bad
Well, the game doesn't really have any flaws per se, except maybe that the "episodes" don't really have a unifying theme to them. A few elements may cross over (such as the Elasi Pirates) but generally they don't have much to do with each other.

Other than this minor nitpick, it's an excellent game!

The Bottom Line
There are some games that have a special quality that just makes them fun. be it Age of Empires, Civilization 3, or Indiana Jones and the fate of Atlantis, these games will always be among the best. This game is one of them.

By James Kirk on July 27, 2005

The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth (Windows)

A throwback to an ancient era...

The Good
...An era where games based on franchises didn't suck. This game is pretty fun at first. The graphics are great, with the various units animated amazingly. The sound track is right from the movie and the voices are all very good (except the Hobbit's voices. Those are embarrassing.) The 4 races in the game (Gondor, Mordor, Isengard, and Rohan) All have their strengthes and weaknesses and are radically different from each other.

The Bad
An era where the "strategy" in an RTS is kept to a bare minimum. There is only one resource in this game. That's right, one. Ever since Age of Empires came out, pretty much any RTS that used only one resource that didn't have some kind of other more strategic element to set it apart from the others (the Total War series comes to mind) got rightly laughed out of the gaming world. Playing this game is like playing a really old game. Somethings just make you glad you live in this modern age. A distinct lack of strategy in the battles makes itself evident. Although there is the usual "archers defeat spearmen defeat calvary" element, it's much less pronounced and the game ends with you just flooding the map with as many units as you can, regardless of the type.

The AI obviously cheats. Destroy all it's resource centers and it will still churn out units like they cost nothing.

Lack of base building also is evident. Instead of just building bases where you want, you have to fight for special patches that allow you to build the various buildings. This turns the game into a gigantic war of attrition. Fight for this patch of land. Hold it. Build it. Rinse. Repeat.

The Bottom Line
Really just for fans of the movies. Doesn't really hold up compared to other games on it's own.

By James Kirk on March 6, 2005

Star Wars: Galaxies - Jump to Lightspeed (Windows)

If you don't already have Star Wars Galaxies, this isn't going to give you anymore reason to get it.

The Good
LucasArts overall has a great tradition of space simulation games based on it's Star Wars franchise. X-Wing, Tie-Fighter, X-Wing Alliance, along with the loosely similar series, Rouge Squadron.

With this venerable lineage under it's belt, you'd think LucasArts would have an automatic slam dunk here. Just take the classic X-Wing gameplay, add a few new elements such as customizable ships, update the graphics and you'd think LucasArts would be done. Instead, they have violated an age old rule that applies ESPECIALLY to VideoGames. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

The Bad
The gameplay is essentially a stripped down version of X-Wing. Gone are the easy to understand bars and displays showing your shields, energy allotment etc. Instead, the first person view is essentially useless, serving only to block your view with the pointless interior of the ship. This pretty much keeps you stuck in the third person mode if you want a good view. (You can change it if you want though). The game operates at a slow, pondering pace. Your ships move rather slowly and alot of the game is just waiting for your ship to get to it's destination.

Then, when you finally get to attack the enemy, it's slow paced beyond belief. Even the simplest ships can easily take over a dozen shots with your weapons (although later, they will be insanely more powerful than your starting weapon) as you lead your target for sometimes up to a full minute, holding down the fire button, hitting nearly every time and your enemy taking little damage.

The ships are also a bit unbalanced. At the very beginning, you will get a weak little ship. At the top, is insanely powerful ships that to many of the weaker ones are practically invincible. Piloting skill is severely devalued in this game in exchange for just whoever has the best equipment. If you've ever played Tie-Fighter, you'll know that while having a less powerful tie-fighter, it certainly isn't impossible to defeat the mighty tie-advanced. Not so in this game.

There are some rather uninteresting features to this expansion, such as being able to walk around in some larger ships and having someone get into a turret while you pilot the ship etc. But these are all really just fluff.

Oh, almost forgot, this expansion adds two more races to the game. Neither really alters the game all that much and is not really worth talking about.

The Bottom Line
Not really worth it. A real disappointment.

By James Kirk on March 6, 2005

Star Wars: Galaxies - An Empire Divided (Windows)

A very sad, sad game...

The Good
This game doesn't really have any good qualities that would distinguish it from other games. After the "combat update" the game plays like a bad clone of Everquest.

The Bad
Ever since the combat "upgrade" the game has been turned from a unique, slightly unfinished gaming experience to a bug-ridden, clone-ripoff of better MMORPG's.

Gone is the skill based combat of the Star Wars Galaxies of old, now we have a "combat level". Having a higher combat level than someone else gives you gigantic damage bonuses, getting higher as the gap between the combat levels widen. Your armor, weapons and other equipment are now mostly just for show. You don't need that high powered rifle and heavy armor. All you need is the higher level.

The variety of skills and professions you can choose are completely out of balance. Before, you could choose to focus only on combat, only on crafting\entertaining or a mix of the two. Now, without combat skills, you can literally be killed instantly. The reason is that you don't get a higher combat level for being a Master Dancer or Weaponsmith. You can literally be walking along (with a combat level of 1) and then get killed in one shot by some thug or wild animal.

Even combat is skewed. Melee such as swordsman and martial arts are now just target practice for ranged professions, because they can move while shooting as quickly as a melee guy can move. This turns into just "shoot and run while he tries to run after you and get in range to hit you".

Even among the ranged professions, the combat is skewed. The 3 main ranged professions, carbines, rifles and pistols play almost identical. The only real difference seems to be the name and what weapons you can use.

It's not so bad for artisans now though. They can just as easily give up crafting and go to combat because artisans simply are nearly worthless. With equipment all being nerfed to about the same level, there's no point in making higher end weapons. Will you pay 80 percent more for a 1 percent damage bonus to a weapon?

The combat "upgrade" has also made a vast array of formerly expensive armor, weapons and resources almost worthless. The new certification system now makes it so that most players can't even use their armor or weapons, where before you could wear what you want and generally use the weapon you wanted. What mattered was your skill, not your combat level.

The game has also completely changed your health. Before, you had three health bars, mind, body and action. Having any of these three depleted would kill or knock you out. Now, action and mind are just costs for doing attacks. Only your body can actually take damage. This removes alot of the strategy from the game, and alot of the point from the ranged professions, who before specialized in either body, action or mind shots.

The game has also made combat boring and slow. You can't line up more than two attacks in advance, so every 5 seconds, you are clicking on the "attack" button again. No evaluation of the enemy or quick tactical analysis. No time for that. Keep clicking the same thing over and over.

The game is also significantly harder. Even expert players will find it difficult to kill multiple enemies, even those with a much lower combat level. Player combat level is capped at 80. NPC's however can be level 120 and beyond, making large portions of higher end content impossible to progress through, even with the 8 player group, the highest amount of players that can group together.

The combat upgrade not only failed to fix old bugs and balance the professions such as squad leader that needed to be balanced, but it brought a whole new host of bugs and imbalances to add on. Everything from the lair spawn bug (One minute, you are fighting two level 5 kreetles from a lair, the next minute, 2 level 30 kreetles spawn) to the decay bug, which destroyed several of my own items.

The Bottom Line
This game really just isn't fun, plain and simple. It's just a ripoff of other games with Star Wars skins slapped on. The game has been pretty much destroyed.

By James Kirk on March 5, 2005

Sid Meier's Pirates!: Live the Life (Windows)

SET FULL SAIL!!

The Good
The atmosphere is excellent. You'll really believe you are sailing down the Spanish Main in your ship, rather than just sitting at home in front of your computer. The sound is excellent, from "ARRR" and the boom of cannons to a sea shanty etc.The graphics are also top notch, with richly textured models and realistic particle effects. The game is also full of replay value, with several difficulty levels, several eras, tons of ship types, artifacts, quests etc. for you to take on once you begin the game. The atmosphere also is excellent, with the classic "swashbuckler" theme such as Monkey Island, rather than a more serious theme.

The Bad
Unfortunately, while the models and textures are good, they are re-used and re-used constantly. The English commander you fight will look the same the next English ship you board etc. The governor's daughters are also a disappointment. Although an improvement from the original, they lack depth. The ladies are rated on attractiveness with three levels, plain, attractive, and beautiful.

Problem is, each level from each nationality is almost always the same. The "plain" women are the same except for skin tone, the "attractive" women look the same except for different skin tone etc. Also, the romance is, while better than the original, lame. According to this game, women love a good dancer and riches and a rank. That's it. It would be more interesting to see perhaps individual personality traits for each woman etc.

Also, although the other game had you believe the sea was crawling with pirates, in this game, there are only 9 other pirates that are named. These guys are incredibly lame!! They are easy to take down, even the "most feared" pirate, and they barely seem to do anything. You begin the game with ridiculously powerful skills. A system where you would gradually get better at pirate stuff would have bee better.

The Bottom Line
Except for some minor problems, a great game!!

By James Kirk on January 17, 2005

Rome: Total War (Windows)

Rome: Total Uber-age

The Good
I've always loved the Roman Empire. I read Edward Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". It was always just so interesting, so when I heard of RTW, I was excited and, as I will show here, rightly so.

First of all, the graphics are simply incredible. You can literally have THOUSANDS of men in a single battle, all perfectly animated with realistic animations and excellent textures.

The single player mission is extremely large and has tons of replay value. You will begin with a gigantic map that goes from North Africa, Easter and Western Europe, the British Isles, and the Middle East. The entire map is divided up into provinces just like the classic game "Risk".

Each province generates income etc. and allows you to build a slew of armies, fortifications and improvements which enhance your income. When you build armies, they can be moved and combined on the world map, just like Risk. You move them from area to area etc. until the inevitable happens, a BATTLE!

The battles are incredible and can be divided into two categories, sieges and field battles. The sieges are very fun and allow you to use up to four siege weapons in fairly realistic ways. Like on real-life, you need significantly more powerful forces to take a besieged city by storm.

The field battles are also excellent. Throughout all the battles, advanced battle tactics such as flanks, charges, and fighting on a hill apply, which add much more depth and strategy to the game beyond that of most other RTS's.

The single player game is mostly a gigantic campaign in which you basically attempt to take over the world. As you play, you can unlock other factions like the Greeks, Egyptians etc. This adds much replay value.

The various factions are also very unique, with a variety of strengths and weaknesses along with different looks for basically the same type of unit.

Playing as the Romans, you will be given various missions from the senate. Accomplishing these missions will either grant you rewards or keep the senate from penalizing you.

The Bad
Unfortunately, even though the diplomacy is much enhanced from previous "Total War" games, it still isn't much. The diplomacy, except for war\peace isn't particularly vital and is mostly for show.

The requirements to run the game are also extremely steep, which is somewhat disappointing, but not surprising given the quality of the graphics.

The Bottom Line
Buy this game. Period.

By James Kirk on January 14, 2005

Star Wars: Battlefront (PlayStation 2)

Another example of selling the license instead of the game.

The Good
Well, the graphics are very well done and there is certainly a wide array of maps, tanks, fighters, and weapons. The controls are very east to master, and each faction, Republic, Rebels, Empire, and Confederacy all have their bonuses and disadvantages. It's really fun in multi-player and the "Galactic Conquest" mode where controlling certain planets grants certain bonuses is really cool.

The Bad
First, many of the maps are incredibly unbalanced, and favor one player over another. As an example, let's take a look at the Tatooine: Dune Sea map. In this map, there are some NPC's (non-playable characters) that attack everyone and have an unlimited amount of spawns. This wouldn't be a problem, except that they spawn right next to one of the players, while the other player is perfectly safe from their attacks. Another example is one of the Yavin IV missions. One side gets heavy tanks, while the other faction gets none, putting them at a severe disadvantage in terms of firepower and endurance. The Jedi in this game are also incredibly over-powered. Look, we all know that Luke, Vader, Mace, and Dooku are powerful guys, but do you see them taking 50 blasts from tanks and troopers? And at the same time block missiles from rocket troopers? No. The problem is that these jedi are nearly invincible and they can kill any trooper in one hit. If the bumbling AI manages to get this jedi to one of your spawn points, you will just have to accept having a jedi sitting in your spawn point, slaughtering dozens of your troops and taking no damage. The controls for the tanks are ok, but the controls for the starfighters are simply terrible. The maps are too small for good starfighter combat. If you move forward for more than 10 seconds, the screen will flash that you are "leaving the battlefield" and you will have to turn around or explode.

The Bottom Line
In the end, this game is just a bot match on a few maps, some good, some terrible. Unless you have a PS2 network adapter to play on the internet, then there isn't really enough to get this game, especially at the hefty $50 price tag.

By James Kirk on November 26, 2004

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (Windows)

I can't see why everyone likes this.

The Good
Ok, before I go on, please know that I own and love Civilization 2 and Civilization 3. Thank you.

When I first got this, i was excited. I had heard almost nothing bad about it, it had received PC Gamer's highest rating ever, and everyone said this was awesome. At first, I thought they were right. The graphics are improved from the original Civilization 2, and the interface seemed pretty much the same. Also, the Wonder Movies, like Civilization 2, were awesome.

The Bad
Then I began playing and realized how "un-fun" this was. I had no idea what any of the improvements or techs were. Should I research Polyphormic Encryption or Synthetic Phase Theory? Gee, the answer is obvious, isn't it? Polyphormic Encryption leads to Quantum flux which lets me modulate my phase variance, whereas Synthetic Phase Theory only allows me too create droids with upgraded logic data processors. Got all that? I didn't. You either know the techs and understand what they are, or you just bumble along, having no clue or clear direction about what you are researching except that "this tech is in the war field, and this other one is in the social field." The ability to create your own units sounds terrific, but proves to be a waste of effort. All the units that are worth any effort are already automatically made by the computer. Speaking of units, unlike in civ 2 where old, useless, antiquated units are replaced by more advanced units in the build menu, in this game, they aren't. So you either have too constantly clear out the old units, or leave them there and scroll through them all.

The Bottom Line
Basically, what you have here is Civilization 2 with poorer controls and much less accessibility. It's just too hard to get into. Civilization II on the other hand, is easy to sit down and play. You'll have to look at the manual every so often, but you can understand the basic concepts of the game such as what "archery" does.

By James Kirk on October 30, 2004

Animal Crossing (GameCube)

*YAWN*

The Good
Well, the game is certainly interesting near the start of the game. Except for an excruciatingly long question sequence in the start of the game where you basically give a few simple answers that could have just been answered by a menu, you will immediately be interested in the seemingly massive world of Animal Crossing. There seems to be so much to see, get, visit, and earn.

The Bad
After a few days, it gets old, and you lose interest. Who thinks it's fun to just run around, delivering different crap to lame looking animal-things?? Conversations will seem to go on forever, wasting time with pointless and amazingly lame jokes rather than just getting right down to business. Maybe you think it's great to wander around a small town, digging up random crap like dinosaur bones, and going through a long and painful process to identify them, but I don't. The features that this game has with other stuff like the gameboy advance is frankly window dressing. The "island" is not really any different than anything else except the fruit looks different, and the you have a beach house that you can store stuff you can't fit in your other house. Like I said before, conversations go on far too long. They will seem interesting in the beginning, but after a while, you just get sick of hearing the same pointless and idiotic dialogue time after time. The items you can get in this game are all, except for a few exceptions, just ornaments. They don't do anything, unlike the sims, where an item is actually USEFUL. Also, your character is too generic. No stats at all, unlike the sims, makes you feel like you have the same guy you started with 3 days ago.

The Bottom Line
I can't say I'd recommend it unless you have bought every other game, and are bored with those.

By James Kirk on October 20, 2004

Sid Meier's Civilization III: Play the World (Windows)

What a ripoff!

The Good
Well, the few meager additions this gives you to Civ 3 are pretty good... The new civs are very good additions.

The Bad
Such a lack of new features! A few new civs, some crap scenarios, and basically multi-player "support" that is TERRIBLY slow, even when there is seemingly nothing going on, the computer lags badly. The new civs, while good, there is just to few of them to justify spending 30 bucks, especially when I can go online and download for free the "Double Your Pleasure" mod which adds MUCH MORE than this expansion.

The Bottom Line
It's just a waste.

By James Kirk on October 14, 2004

Army Men II (Windows)

Good gameplay + unique premise = A good buy

The Good
First, the premise is extremely interesting. The tan soldiers and the green soldiers are fighting each other in a war. General Plasto has disappeared and left commander Mylar in charge of Tan forces, which are as we speak, viscously attacking green territory. The story is continued with a mix of in game dialogue and extremely well done FMV sequences, and despite the simplicity of the plot, you will be genuinely interested in what comes next. The graphics are nothing spectacular, but are good for the time. The controls are rather simple, although new comes may have difficulty mastering them. There are a large variety of weapons such as flamethrower, grenades, mortars, rifles, etc that you can get. The levels, although sometimes repetitive, sometimes give a great military feel and often present interesting challenges such as getting through and clearing out an enemy minefield.

The Bad
Well, the main problem i have with the game is that it's kind of creepy. Enemy soldiers will scream as their heads are blown off, or they melt into pools of plastic. The death scenes are creepy also (in a darkly humorous sort of way) such as Sarge being executed in an electric chair, death by lethal injection, and being transformed into what is best described as a plastic zombie.

The Bottom Line
An above average game that causal players will enjoy, although I wouldn't recommend it for kids.

By James Kirk on September 10, 2004

SimCity 4: Rush Hour (Windows)

What's the point?

The Good
There isn't really a whole lot to say about this. The graphics are the same as the original, the sounds are too. There are some new roads like the one-way road, but these don't add a whole lot of gameplay value in my humble opinion. Same for some new buildings. Being able to be a corrupt mayor (to a point) is pretty interesting. (Hmmm, could that be a Beta for "SimChicago" ?)

The Bad
Well, the main feature was supposed to be the ability to drive around the city etc. but this is done very poorly. The controls are difficult to learn, the aircraft handle like crap, the cars are very fragile and are difficult to steer, making laughable crashes between cars common place, and making pedestrians (which aren't affected by you running them over I might add) common. The missions themselves are lame. Most of them consist of

1. Getting your vehicle to point A, than B, etc.

or

1. Destroying building A.

The graphics even seem off. The texture quality may fluctuate between great and terrible. Slowdowns are not uncommon, cars will appear in the street from out of nowhere, and invisible walls keep you from running into houses and buildings.

The Bottom Line
This is basically a revenue generator. Avoid avoid avoid.

By James Kirk on August 22, 2004

Star Wars: Bounty Hunter (GameCube)

Yet ANOTHER average Star Wars game.

The Good
Well, unlike many other Star Wars games, the original actors do the voices for all the characters that appear in the game, so that's a plus. The weapons are quite interesting and include Jango's blasters (Shoot two guys at once!), his flamethrower, and missiles. Using his jetpack is pretty fun. The story is also better than many other Star Wars games. (The fact that this isn't based on the movie is partly the reason. Games based on movies are usually a. terrible and b. barely follow the original plot of the movie.) You'll go across a wide range of planets and areas, and fight a slew of different enemies. Bounty Hunting, despite how retarded the actual identifying and capturing is, is really interesting to see all the different guys you'll catch, what they've done, who wants them captured (or killed) etc.

The Bad
First, the bounty hunting is completely moronic. You can switch to the bounty hunting screen just like a weapon, put the targeting reticule over the victim to see if he has a bounty on him. problem is, you can't move while doing this! This means that while you are trying to find bounties, you're getting shot up by the band of enemies that stay together in groups. Capturing bounties also yields no reward but boring unlockable concept art (is anyone ever really interested in that? I never am!). So dispel any notion you have of going to the planet of your choice, hunting down certain bounties, buying weapons, etc. This is a linear, action game with basically NOTHING no seen in other games like this. The way this game is setup is not what you would expect. Body count can get pretty high, with Jango taking on 15 guy at once, making him seem more like the Terminator rather than a stealthy assassin (Oh, yeah, no stealth in this game either.) The graphics are also pretty bland. The occasional bug (such as falling through the floor is pretty annoying.). Many of the missions aren't amazingly interesting either. Having no map showing where you have been or where you are makes navigation difficult, as the levels are quite large, and often require back tracking and multiple twists and turns. Oh, and occasionally obscure doors don't make the game funner either.

The Bottom Line
Overall, I'd say this is better than many Star Wars games that have come out. i wouldn't really recommend this game for purchase though. Rent it.

By James Kirk on August 22, 2004

The Hobbit (GameCube)

Playing fast and loose with story + rushed game = ZZZZZ

The Good
Well, the controls are pretty simple, as this is your standard adventure, jumping etc. game. There certainly is some nice treasure hunting (which will add health points and allow you to buy items). The voice acting is pretty good and the running length is decent.

The Bad
Well, the graphics are annoyingly cartoony. It's really a shame the graphics weren't more like the Lord of the Rings games. The battles lack the kind of epic scale that was in the books (would you call an army of goblins 30?) and the enemy AI borders on pathetic sometimes. Stand in a particular spot that is slightly elevated above the other terrain and the screaming hordes (ok, maybe 2 or 3 guys usually) will either run around or just walk away and ignore you. Some of the stealth is terrible also. Enemies that don't get alerted when you hit them in the head with a rock? All the added material that the game puts in the levels is pretty annoying. Remember when in the goblin caves, Bilbo had to get these gears to activate these lifts so he could get the wart stone to bribe the goblin guard so he would let him through? No, I sure don't. Too much of the game feels like a chore. Go across great chasm to get crystal door knob, go back to activate the golden doo-hickey, then you can travel to search for the platinum whats-it. Then you activate the purple lift blah blah blah. Oh, and most of the enemies look like something you'd get out of a McDonalds Happy Meal.

The Bottom Line
This game is unfortunately another casualty of game developers rushing a game in time for an event be it Christmas, or the opening of a movie. If you're a big Tolkien fan, then renting this game should be sufficient.

By James Kirk on August 15, 2004

Pirates! Gold (Windows 3.x)

Arrrrrrr! Good game Ahoy!

The Good
This game has a very interesting premise in my opinion. Playing as a pirate is very satisfying. The graphics, while hardly amazing, are pretty good and are a joy to behold. They just exude the atmosphere of piracy on the high seas, along with the sounds which just stop short of making you burst out into a sea shanty as your family watches in horror. There is plenty for you to do in this game also. You can raid ships, plunder cities (even overthrow the governor and install a new one to your liking), search for buried treasure, find an ancient Indian treasure, hold other pirates for ransom, raid the treasure fleet, and impress regional governors to attain ranks (which attract the ladies) and gain land (which increase your score).

The Bad
The combat system is where the game goes from great to just good. First, in ground battles, you command your own character who attacks the enemy's leader. How well you do in this battle effects the morale of your's and his troops, which determines how many casualties each side takes. this is in effect, pretty lame. Those hoping for a strategic battle between pirates and the town's militia will be disappointed, as the majority of ground combat is senseless button mashing. Just keep your character stabbing constantly and you will most likely win. The sea combat is ok. It involves steering around your ship (if you have more than one, you can still only have one fighting per battle) and pressing the attack button which fires a salvo of cannons. You can also, ram a ship to board it. Again, not all that terrible, but certainly it could be better. A variety of annoying bugs may plague you occasionally such as the cannons on your ship not appearing in a battle, your ship not being armed with cannons despite the fact you have cannons in your inventory, and the gold that you have accumulated on your ship disappearing after a battle. Some of the cargo feels a bit rushed also. A total of three items for any time period (Always food, occasionally there is tobacco instead of furs, yipee! ) The lack of interesting cargo inventory makes the game seem a bit less realistic.

The Bottom Line
Hardly a great game, but certainly worth a look. They are coming out with a newer version sometime this year, so we might be seeing more pirates soon;)

By James Kirk on August 14, 2004

Risk II (Windows)

Another example of game designers thinking they can make the game good with flashy graphics.

The Good
Well, the graphics are admittedly nice, and the map looks pretty good. Aside from that, there is so little in this game that distinguishes this from the older versions of risk (not "Risk 1" the prequel to this, but the Risk made by Virgin) that it hardly seems worth the bother. You could probably download a freeware version of risk and aside from the graphics, have it just as good.

The Bad
Ok, here we go. First of all, the combat seems to have devolved since the last game. Instead of the flanking, massed charges, tactics, forts, generals, famines, plagues, storms, prisoners of war, alliances, and revolts, this game has the boring old dice roll. Ho hum. Admittedly, there is a variant in the game called "same time risk", but this is so lackluster compared to the previous Risk one wonders why the creators even bothered to include it. When your turn begins (or ends) you will be assaulted by a wave of dialogue boxes telling you nothing you can't already see yourself i.e. it will tell you that player 2 has captured one of your territories despite the fact you just fought that battle. The "interactive battle sequences" really mean watching gigantic toy soldiers shoot at each other, hitting nothing. When you click the "roll" button, the dice will roll, and then a laser beam will shoot out of the dice, destroying the soldiers on both sides that lost the dice roll. Ohh, Ahh! Then, the dice rolls seem a bit slanted. Sometimes, the computer will defend or win against impossible odds. It's incredibly frustrating playing a game where the outcome of the battle hinges so little on your own actions.

The Bottom Line
I would avoid this. The game itself isn't terrible, but when you compare it to the previous one, it really doesn't have anything.

By James Kirk on August 11, 2004

Loom (DOS)

Perhaps THE most imaginative Adventure game from LucasArts

The Good
Well, first, the story is incredibly interesting. It is strangely interesting and it's unlikely you'll "get" the whole story until a couple times through. Second, the gameplay is really innovative. No inventory, just your Distaff with which you weave "drafts" that allow you to open doors, move obstacles, get past guards etc. Also, the graphics are excellent VGA (if you're lucky to get the CD version; it's pretty rare). Finally, the sounds, voices, etc. all blend in seamlessly making a beautifully rich world.

The Bad
Well, the game is VERY short. I got this game yesterday and played it for the first time in years and beat it in less than a day! It was kind of disappointing. Aside from that, the only other real problem with this game is the scream Bobbin Threadbare will emit when something happens to him, like being captured by a dragon. This long, terrible scream makes this game sound like he's being tortured. Something scarier than what LucasArts typically makes, so you may want to think twice before giving this to your 5 year old.

The Bottom Line
This game is quite rare (the full cd talkie version anyway). So, if you can get one, I would advise you take the opportunity. You won't regret it.

By James Kirk on August 10, 2004

Spider-Man 2 (PlayStation 2)

This game could have been so much better.

The Good
Well, first, except for a few exceptions, the models look very good. Swinging is now REALLY fun and alot cooler. By doing certain things like defeating a thug, you get "hero" points which you can use to buy combos and upgrades. The combat is also pretty good, with a load of variety with it and some cool looking moves (wanna leave thugs hanging from a pole?) Also, most of the characters sound like they should.

The Bad
First, there is a total lack of variety in the missions. Race here, bonk some heads, repeat. And repeat. And repeat. The monotony rarely ends. The "generic" missions which everyday citezens will give you get old REAL fast. Citezens are very durable. You can see them get hit with a missle, fly into the air at least 25 feet, then land on their feet and keep going. Speaking of the average people, not only do they look terrible (with painted on faces, terrible clipping issues, the same animation over and over, flat voices, no body language) they are annoying to. You'll hear the same comments over and over again. Also, many of the characters like Mysterio and Rhino have been changed needlessly. Finally, the game is way to short. You'll fight 4 bosses, then you'll be left in the big city with nothing interesting to do but go around and collect tokens (ohhh ahhh)

The Bottom Line
Word to game publishers and devolpers. Stop making movie tie-ins. Usually, they fall short of most other games and this one is no exception. Just rent it, you'll be done in less than a week.

By James Kirk on July 26, 2004

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (Windows)

Straddles that line between good and great.

The Good
First, the graphics are pretty good. People will move their lips while talking, the terrain is nicely detailed etc. Next, the amount of interaction is pretty food. You'll always have a ton of dialouge choices when you talk to characters, (which will have a signifigant effect on your force alignment and how other characters act). Next, there is a ton of weapons, armor, grenades etc. that you can get.

The Bad
Well first, this thing is a total memory hog. It takes up 4 Gigabytes which is more than 20% of my hard drive! Next, the game is very buggy. Sometimes it can lock up, others it will get a player "caught" on a wall. (Although patches have helped). Sometimes, using the force to persuade people is kinda boring. You just click on it and if you are good enough, you succeed. If your character doesn't have the required stats, you don't succeed. This lack of skill based gameplay for parts of the game is somewhat disappointing. Next, this games runs quite slow unless you have at least 1.4 GHZ processor Which I don't have:( Finally, combat is somewhat lackluster. You just arm your weapon and tell him to attack (although admitadly, there are moves you can do that change the stats of your attacks) and he'll attack the same way 50 times in a row (or however long). They all seem to have only a couple animations for attacking. Finally, the planets can seem a bit disappointing. You can explore through a whole planet in a little less than several hours. The fact that every planet has 1 city and everything around it is barren wasteland is kinda disappointing.

The Bottom Line
This is a pretty good game, but don't believe the hype. It's not a game that will change your life.

By James Kirk on June 27, 2004

The Fantastic Four (PlayStation)

BORING!!!

The Good
First, the music is kindy catchy (although on my system, it sometimes skips, I think it's because of the disk though). Second, most of the scenery is pretty good and adds a bit of class to the game. Also, the controls are ok.

The Bad
Ok, where to start. First, the enemies are extremely repetitive. You'll fight the same two types of guys level after level. Next, the "special moves" are very repetitive. All the characters have a special move that hurts all enemies on the screen (different animation of course. The human torch will let a cascade of flame down everywhere and the Thing will do some kind of uber-ground pound) and another one that deals alot of damage to everyone nearby etc. Also, the characters all seem about the same. Although the manual says that some are stronger or faster, I never really noticed except for the difference in speed. Finally, if all this uniformity wasn't enough, there are only a few different normal attacks you can do. (I counted 4 per character). Next, boss battles are all pretty much the same. Either you just keep going and attacking him, or you block, and then attack, block, than attack. Not alot of variety. Finally, the game is pretty short (only about 5 levels.) and doesn't allow you to save (this is one of those games where you have to play the whole thing if you turn it off.

The Bottom Line
I'd reccomend that you rent this or maybe borrow it if you're a hardcore marvel fan. if not, then it's not worth it.

By James Kirk on June 26, 2004

Myst (Windows)

This game is very difficult to enjoy.

The Good
First, the graphics and sounds were very realistic, even for today. Second, It gives you a great sense of mystery exploring the island and all the ages.

The Bad
The game is bleeping impossible! The puzzles are ridiculously difficult and obscure. You will randomly click around, hoping to push the secret button. Also, the story is practically non-existant and you will walk away saying "huh" if you don't read the book "Myst: The book of Atrus".

The Bottom Line
This game is ok if you are a fan of the book, but for those just wanting to sit down and play a game, you will be sorely disappointed.

By James Kirk on May 31, 2004

Roberta Williams' King's Quest VII: The Princeless Bride (Windows 3.x)

Proof Roberta Williams started taking drugs after King's Quest 6.

The Good
It has the King's Quest name and it cost me less than 20 dollars.

The Bad
First, the graphics are pretty bad. The "Motion picture quality animation" (I'm quoting the box here) is kind of choppy and seems like it's missing several frames when anything moves quickly. Second, the music really gets on your nerves. Next, instead of the look, pick up, talk, and walk buttons, they now just have a "magic wand" for a cursor. Just put it over something, if it sparkles, click. Speaking of the interface, the bottom part of the screen is the inventory menu instead of the full screen action you get in the other King's Quest games. Also, often, when you click on an item that "light's up" the magic wand, you character (who is very slow, even in version 2.0) will stroll over and say, get ready for the deep, profound statement, "amazing!" she will exclaim. Nothing else. Just that. Why they had that item light up the wand in the first place is a mystery. Also, gone is the simple save screen. instead, you have to enter your name, then you "bookmark" a chapter. (more on chapters later) No simple save button. You have to go through a boring menu to save. The game is divided into chapters. You can play any chapter at any time. This eliminates the sense of progression. Why not just skip to the end. ALso, the begining cutscene, unlike in previous King's Quest games, isn't interesting to watch. 50 percent of it is watching a poorly animated Rosella singing some lame song. Then 45 percent is Rosella and her mom talking about how Rosella must be married. WOW! That's original! Then, at the end, she dives into a pool?? and is caught by an arm that pulls her into another dimension as her mom falls downward. No explanation. no reason why she jumped in the pool. She just, did. Then, the puzzles are lame. They fall into three categories.

1. Ridiculously easy
2. Stupidly obscure
3. Ridiculously difficult

No more experimenting with items. Instead, if you put an item over the other, and it doesn't light up, then it won't even let you try. The whole game holds your hand the whole time as if four year olds are playing this game. The talking is boring. There is no lip sync, and practically no body language or expression in their voice.

The Bottom Line
If you are a fan of King's Quest, don't get it. You'll feel bad afterwards.

By James Kirk on May 1, 2004

King's Quest II: Romancing the Stones (Windows)

A brilliant remake!!

The Good
I loved the graphics. A really nice VGA enviroment. The sounds were excellent and the music really set a nice tone. All the puzzles made sense. Even if you were stumped and then read a walkthrough, you'd think "Can't believe I missed that" It's a really neat story and terriffic ending. The voices are pretty good. It also has quite a bit of humour like puns in the death screens and you can do some pretty funny stuff without losing the seriousness.

The Bad
First, you can get yourself endlessly trapped. For example, in a castle about 2/3 through the game, there is a feast laid out. if you don't pick up the ham, you can't get past a ferocious animal at the end of the game. It's very disappointing to find you have to practically start the game over.

The Bottom Line
It's free. Download it along with the sound packs. it's very good and best of all, it's free!!

By James Kirk on April 25, 2004