robc

I have been looking foward to this game for a while now as I enjoy a good tactical wargame. I need to spend more time with it to complete part 2 of the review and give it a final score, but so far I enjoy it a lot. The rules are elegant and very managable and for the most part the user interface is excellent with some minor quirks. The review can be found here: http://www.oneguytoomanygames.com/2012/05/conflict-of-heroes-awakening-bear.html As always feel free to make comments or ask questions here or on my site. It is a bit longer than the rest of my reviews, so hopefully I didn't overdo it.

Just got this Tweet. GamersGate ‏ @GamersGate It couldn't have something to do with our upcoming project could it? No, no... who would not want free games?

I'm just starting to get into it, but it seemed like a potentially good game from the demo. It will take some time to figure out if it's got the potential to last.

Version Reviewed: 1.0.0.1 What I like: Great atmosphere, lots of content for $10, good enough tower defense game play with a twist, leaderboards. Not So Much: While fun, taking over weapons makes it more difficult to keep track of the big picture. Other stuff you may like: Action junkies will probably appreciate manually controlling the weapons more than I. The Verdict: B- (Good) * I can definitely see more action-oriented players scoring this game very highly. If you are interested in the full review, it can be found at: http://www.oneguytoomanygames.com/2012/05/toy-soldiers-review.html As always, comments or questions are welcome either here or at the review page.

Forgive me, I'm cross posting this here and on TMA because I'm not sure what is the more used one yet. If you read my comment there, no need to read it here. I haven't listened to the whole episode yet because my dog didn't crap enough in the yard to keep my busy for a whole episode. As far as the AI and providing a challenge and getting bonuses... Obviously if a computer opponent can provide a challenge without cheating it is preferable to one needing to cheat. Beating Unity of Command was satisfying because the AI put up a good fight. When the AI needs bonuses to be competitive, beating it is less satisfying. It highlights how dumb the AI really is. Beating my 4 year old in a race isn't satisfying even if I give him a big head start. Beating up on a dumb AI falls into the same category. Also, giving the AI large bonuses can negate the fun that some of the systems in the game provides. In Civilization, I love building wonders. It's my favorite part of the game. If I give the AI large bonuses, they get an unfair advantage and are able to build my wonders without giving me a chance. I'm not an elite Civ player. I can win a level or two above the even difficulty level, but that is it. I get cranky when the AI gets my wonder not because it played better, but because it cheated me out of it. Like others have mentioned on the show, historical games can provide a challenge by letting you play the underdog. I think it hurts historical games when the game thinks it needs to balance the sides. If one had a big advantage in real life, that should be modeled. What I enjoy is when a game can score you to show whether you over or under performed compared to real life. You can play the underdog or the favorite, and get scored. Playing the favorite doesn't have to make it easier to get a good score, because you must still outperform history. This can be applied to non historical games to with leader boards. I enjoy seeing what percentile I rank in games. The hard part is for the game designers making a scoring system that is fair and rewards good play without exploiting the system to get a good score.

You're welcome. Hope you enjoy the rest of the game!

I'm not 100% sure they are from CoH, but the date matches up with when I played it and according to the Steam forum it was the right location. Clash of Heroes Saves.zip

I really liked Diablo 1 & 2, but that type of game just fell apart for me with Torchlight. I found I was mindlessly clicking and no strategy was required. I remembered Diablo as more than that, but found I was doing the same thing during the Diablo 3 open beta. Maybe I'm getting to old for these types of games. Now they seem like slightly more interesting alternatives to Solitaire. My guess is that the two earlier Diablos were just as mindless, but for some reason I enjoyed them then. So for all you who enjoy this type of game, what makes it entertaining for you? Is it the type of game you like to play when you don't want to be taxed too much, or an I missing some aspect of them that makes them fun? Is it the multiplayer with some friends that is appealing?

I don't think I have a general rule. I think if the game remains unfun for a couple hours and doesn't show any signs of improving, then I will quit. If I think it is just do to a learning curve I would stick with it. I stopped playing the Diablo 3 open beta weekend early because I have grown tired of clickfest gaming and Diablo didn't offer up anything to keep me going (story, interesting strategic choices, etc). I also stopped playing the Valley With No Wind demo after an hour or so because I wasn't enjoying myself. If it is something I paid for I am probably inclined to give it a bigger chance. I used to have a harder time giving up on a game and felt compelled to complete it. If I have already put in a lot of time and am getting close to the end I may be inclined to stick with it unless it is horrible.

For me the puzzles and exploration held the game together. I didn't care for the combat / square dance. Luckily the former was strong enough to make up for the latter and still have it be a good game (in my opinion). I would have liked a little variety in secret button appearance and location too.

I went back in time and reviewed Tin Soldiers: Julius Caesar, which is still a quality game after 7 years. I couldn't find a current thread on the game so I started a new one. Version Reviewed: 1.1.1 What I like: Easy to get into, enough factors to make combat interesting, challenging. Not So Much: Dated visuals, click-heavy controls, can’t specify attack path, a little slow, limited resolution choices. Other stuff you may like: Multiplayer offered, included historical background. The Verdict: B- (Good) If you are interested in the full review, it can be found at: http://www.oneguytoomanygames.com/20...ar-review.html As always, comments or questions are welcome either here or at the review page. Someone please let me know if it is frowned upon to share a review in such a manner.

I'm going to stretch the rules slightly and include a RPG with tactical combat as a strategy game. I want a RPG that has: 1a) This is the most important feature. I want time to actually matter. I am tired of being on the all important quest to save the world, but always motivated to try an explore every last nook and cranny of the world. If I really had to kill the foozle to save the world, I wouldn't explore every last inch of the world to earn a couple more coins. I would be focused on getting the job done. Now if I learned about a dungeon that may contain a powerful sword that will aid me in my quest, that makes more sense. If my current quest is to save a town from marauding orcs, there should be consequences if it takes me an extra week to get there because I decided to explore for the fun of it. Perhaps the talented blacksmith gets killed if I don't save the town by a certain date, and he could have taught me his craft or sold me a great set of armor. 1b) Now, there could be ebbs and flows of important quests so the player has some time to just explore. Perhaps the important quest isn't revealed until later in the game, so you do have time to take minor quests and do some exploring. 1c) Have different scales of success for completing quests in a timely manner. Solve it fast and everyone is ok. Take extra time and the towns economy takes a hit. Take more time and nothing is left. 2) Have a realistic reputation system. If I steal from a guy in a town but I'm not caught, it shouldn't hurt my reputation. Now if I rob everyone in town blind, I was new to town, and I leave after I am done, perhaps people are suspicious of the new comer. Maybe there is a chance I left behind some clues based on my thieving skills. Maybe not enough to convict me, but perhaps there is some mob justice. 3) Good turn-based tactical along the lines of a good tactical wargame, but in a typical fantasy setting (like Dungeons and Dragons). Have a detailed system where there is lots of room for strategizing. 4) Make death matter, but not common. In RPGs where it is expected you will die every 5 minutes and must save and reload have the effect of making death insignificant. It ruins the tension because the player isn't that concerned about avoiding death. There should be meaningful consequences for bad play, but death isn't the only option. The Dark Souls mechanic is interesting, but I don't think that it should be the common way death is handled. Make me play on with the consequences of my actions, not just reload the last save constantly. You're going to hop right on this, right Jon? :-)

I do exactly the same thing when playing RPGs. I just finished playing Legend of Grimrock (a pseudo RPG). I finished the game with a ton of potion reagents left. Every time I needed to heal, I would trudge back to a healing crystal instead of making a potion and fighting on. You never know when you're really going to need those potions. If I've got legs to walk back on I make the trip. I never know if the game is going to get a lot more difficult and I will require those potions. Nobody wants to get to a point in a game where they have to start over because they expended too much of a resource, specially a game where the content will be identical on the next play through. I believe I would enjoy these games more if I could get over it, but I still hoard. Rob

Unity of Command is one of my favorite games in a long time and I agree with much of what was said about it. My biggest complaint is the tension to avoid using prestige for reinforcements or extra units. I like the mechanic, but I try not to use up prestige since it lowers your score. I always feel like I should win without using up the prestige. This leads me to keep trying to win without using it for my first attempts, and only using it on subsequent attempts if needed. It makes it feel gamey to me and breaks the illusion that I am a commander with resources at my disposal.