Announcement

**Juggler** · February 19, 2002, 16:17

If you don't want to download the demos then be sure to read reviews about the games (from gamespot, gamespy, etc.). If you read reviews thoroughly you'll know exactly whitch aspects of the games you like and which you don't.

And about the games - RTCW is excellent (although not everybody likes it) but Trade empires has disappointed most of my friends who've bought it.

**Moral Hazard** · February 19, 2002, 16:22

Thanks, I've read the reviews on all of them. I am rereading the reviews on Trade Empires and Fallout Tactics. Personally I prefer the reviews on Gamespot and IGN, not the scores but the actual reviews.

It's just me or do the scores at gamespot almost seem bought?

**Dis** · February 19, 2002, 16:46

well you can say that about civ3

. But that was because of the name on the box.

Ask me anything about fallout: tactics. I own that game. My brother didn't care for wolfenstein very much I don't think.

Fallout: tactics. If you really, really enjoyed combat in fallout then this should be a good buy. But if you preferred the role playing elements of fallout more then this may not be a good buy.

Fallout tactics is basically all combat. Even though I think they left some non combat skills and perks in (the used the same character set up). It may even be better, because it seems being a sharpshooter isn't as overpowering as before. But you better make sure your squad has 1 or 2 good sharpshooters. But you still need a heavy weapons guy. And I like to have a explosives type character. I still like to have 1 silent HTH or melee type character.

The storyline is a bit linear (there are 3 possible endings though). There is one mission I don't like too much when you are going through the city. They place rubble to kind of force you to go one way. But there are still many different things you can do in this mission. You can go the direct route (dangerous). Or weave in and out of buildings and try to get on top of them for an advantage.

And watch those guys on the tops of buildings.

All in all a fun game. Although realy the type you play only once or twice. But there are many missions that take a while. So it has many hours to this game. And there may be more missions on the internet (I haven't checked since they made a mission editor). They also have multiplay but you aren't interested in that.

So if you like combat in fallout, then $10 for tactics seems like a good deal.

**Dis** · February 19, 2002, 16:53

one more thing. I checked the review. It mentions squad based combat. And yes the squad based combat is fun. Kind of like X-com. Just don't look for the empire type strategy in x-com. This game is purely combat with some RPG elements thrown in (your characters do go up in levels and aquire perks and skills).

you also get to drive vehicles in combat. But unfortunately only for certain missions. Many missions they force you to exit the vehicle at the start of the mission. But who doesn't enjoy driving a tank ehh? And driving vehicles in special encounters is so much easier. I can just drive away and not fight all the time. Which is good because I don't like special encounters that much in tactics. There are too many of them, and I didn't want to waste points on my outdoorsman skill.

**Moral Hazard** · February 19, 2002, 17:21

Great, So far after rereading the Gamespot review and Dissident's post. It looks like I'll definitly be buying Fallout Tactics. Actually concerning MP in Fallout I'm vaguely interested (my favorite MP game was Shogun) It might be a problem finding people to play though.

About Trade Empires I'm not looking for a great game but a game which is fun to play through once, basically does it have good atmosphere, and can you play it with out getting to down and dirty with the mechanics, say on medium level. Kind of like Civ 3 of course, when I played Civ 3 I was looking for a lot more, especially after Paying for the LE

**Dis** · February 19, 2002, 18:00

I've been meaning to play multiplayer in tactics. I just haven't gotten around to it. I figure I'll get my ass kicked.

From what I hear it is best to play with restriction on money and whatnot. If you play without those restrictions people just buy a lot of drugs and get the best weapons. Usually the person that shoots first wins. It might be interesting to play with restrictions that allow more melee and hth combat.

And I would like to play as a dog

. I miss dogmeat.

I think many multiplayer games may be real time. But some may take place in turn based. It should say on the set up screen.

Another thing I didn't mention. Not much of a big deal since they offer 3 ways of playing. There are 3 time modes. You have individual turn based, squad turn based, and simultaneious turn modes. Simultaneous is almost like real time except that when you do certain actions your time bar goes down, and it takes a little while before you can peform that action again. So when you fire a gun you have to wait maybe a half a second before you can do so again.

Individual turn based is like it was in fallout 1 and 2. It is based on your reaction score or whatever. Squad based is more like X-com. Your whole squad moves first, then the enemy moves and then the npc's move.

**John-SJ** · February 19, 2002, 18:35

I found TE to be very boring and monotonous after the first few missions. You end up doing EXACTLY the same thing, over and over. I was also very disappointed to find that all you get is a bunch of missions that you can play in any order, there is no attept made at all to put the missions into any kind of campaign or anything, so once you've completed the first mission you've done all there is to do. In subsequent missions you just do the same things over again.

John-SJ

**August Borms** · February 19, 2002, 20:44

I wouldn't buy RTCW for the singleplayer only.
Not that it's bad but it's so short and doesn't really have anything new compared to other FPS

**War4ever** · February 20, 2002, 10:21

well the one thing i have found with most reviewing co. is that all games get a pretty high review if they attempt to fix previous flaws in a series..ie civ3

think about it...which gaming mag would ever stand up to Sid and Co. and just pan the game.....they do it in less than obvious ways..

before buying any game , your best bet is to dl the demo...dl the full version off the net.....IF you like these versions and you still want to take a chance...$$ support your local video game maker.

if not..no harm done trying a game so long as you get rid of it....with my small hard drive....only games i like, which are few are bought and permanently installed.....

the rest are tried, tested, and discarded without copies being made...and yes from time to time i am sure i have tossed away good games , i just couldn't get into for whatever reason.

However, i did save myself some serious $'s this way

**loinburger** · February 20, 2002, 12:02

RTCW was fun, but its replay value is dismal.

**Juggler** · February 20, 2002, 12:07

Personally I prefer the reviews on Gamespot and IGN, not the scores but the actual reviews.

And that's what you should keep doing, reading the facts about the game and not somebody's personal opinion about the games.

For instance, try comparing reviews (scores) on gamespot and games domain. You'll find out that one reviewer likes some particular game and the other doesn't.

**John-SJ** · February 21, 2002, 11:18

Facts? About some games, maybe, but about others the "facts" are so obscurred you'd have quite a problem discerning them.

For example, just yesterday I saw for the first time in print an admission that Civ 3 had bugs! Reading the initial reviews and review scores and all of the "facts" you'd think the game was perfect, or at least darned close.

Even with the admission that the bugs in Civ3 affected nearly every aspect of the game when they gave an example of a bug they still downplayed it using a Civilopedia typo as an example of the type of bugs encountered.

It appears when it comes to some games, and Civ3 seems to be the worst offender, the gaming press just can't shoot straight no matter how hard they seem to try.

The experience of Civ3 and some other titles has seriously soured me to relying on game mag or online reviews of games to determine whether I'd enjoy a game or not. These days it is the personal opinions of people I know have similar interests to my own that I give the most weight to and I read the reviews as a source of entertainment. After all, what could be more fun than to watch a reviewer make a total fool of himself?

The bottom line is (for me, at least) I would much rather listen to personal opinion, at least then I know I'm hearing from someone who likes games rather than from someone who's salary is paid by the producer of the game they are reviewing.

John-SJ

**Moral Hazard** · February 21, 2002, 19:09

Thanks for the comments.

I ended up getting Fallout Tactics and FIFA 2001($20).

About reviews, they're not all bad. Especially when the game comes from a smaller publisher or developer, in which case their usually spot on. There is one thing that reviews never do and that's tells you; how long you'll enjoy the game for. And I'll admit it Civ 3 was fun for about 2 weeks, I usually like my strategy games to last longer than that tho. Basically the more inputs one gets from all sources, the better.

Demos can often suffer from the same problem as reviews. You may love the demo and hence buy the game. Only to find out that the features or levels missing in the demo were either poorly done or not worth the purchase of the game. It sounds like Trade Empires falls into that category, because I remember people raving about the demo.

Announcement

Should I buy any of these games?

Should I buy any of these games?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment